We Want Answers!!!!!!

[HMR]

You are wrong.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

[Lead Sled]

I guess there's a first time for everything.

HMR, it's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. I made one once - I thought that I had made a mistake, but it turned out I was right.

'Sled

 

[100-1/2]

" The links to porn (anything above PG-13) have to stop."

So... "G-rated" or "super-soft" porn links are okay?

100-1/2

I'm assuming that you're an adult and that you exercise good judgement. I'll defer to your good judgement. If it differs from what the moderators consider appropriate, unless blatantly flying in the face of the spirit of the rules, you'll be given a polite request to ratchet it down a notch or two. Fair enough?

UAL78

 

[414Flyer]

I think a lot of us are fine with their being stated rules and if someone breaks rules, and if a banning results with an explanation as to why, then fine.

But when someone is not banned but gets the limbo treatment with no explanation as to why, well it really rubs people the wrong way. It gives the appearance of a sneaky underhanded way to silence someone who maybe did not break any rules, but who possibly had views that were in disagreement with the owners.

I know its their board, and they can run it as they wish. Based on conversations with other members and my own thoughts, I would highly suggest they end the "limbo" stuff because members have left specifically because of that. If they want to shut up members, they should just be enough about it to so in a publicly visible manner instead of an seemingly underhanded sneaky way.


***********************************************************

I hope you guys don't mind me putting my responses (and they are only my thoughts, but I do think they reflect the position of the other mods) here in your post, but people have asked for good communication from us and this way, the response is connected right to either the question or your opinion statement. So here goes:

I agree with you. How's that? I believe that you will not see that tool used much in the future (if at all). As you may have seen, the owners of the board have left it alone recently, and left the mods to handle the day to day stuff. I trust that the regular contributors are starting to see that the board has it's old feel back to it. As you can also see, there is no editing or censorship to the dozens of links and posts inviting you to aviation forums other than FlightInfo. That would be wrong and it's unnecessary.

Here are some things that I think you can rely on here at FlightInfo. Differences of opinion are welcome. What is not going to be tolerated is belittling, insulting, or harrassing another poster. You've all seen it here, and it leads to nothing positive and actually gets a lot of good people crosswise with the mods and each other. You're also going to see more communication to you- from us. Lastly, we are going to re-double our efforts to make sure that there is NO perception of partiality in what moderating must be done by the mods.

As I stated in another post, nobody understands pilot irreverance better than I do. In a darn, serious business, we don't take a lot of things seriously and we don't suffer fools well either. Gang, virtually everything (with a few exceptions) can be allowed here- just with some moderation- and I mean YOURS, not ours. It would be our goal to make these forums virtually "transparent" as far as our work goes. But it depends on all of you, the posters to exercise that same good judgement that you use when you are at a place that you hold some respect for. That's not unreasonable, is it?

Thanks,
UAL78

ps. as far as banning goes, that should be an absolute last resort and saved for the most aggregious cases. The Penalty Box should be all that we ever should need to rely on.

 

[Flechas]

HMR, it's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. I made one once - I thought that I had made a mistake, but it turned out I was right.

'Sled

Haha classic!!!

 

[surplus1]

UAL78,

Your efforts at damage control are good but they fail to address the real issue.

No matter the explanations that you've given, the fact remains that the owners of the board acted unreasonably and without justification. Obviously that isn't their opinion but it is mine. To date, they have made no real effort to alter their behavior and thier policy remains unchanged.

I don't think anyone objects to a set of rules per se. I don't think anyone objects to the banning of foul language, personal attacks, "outing", pornography, sexual references or threats against individual members or the administration of the site. However, the actions taken with respect to the Non-Aviation segment of the board, specifically the banning of all content related to religion, and the placement of honorable members into limbo status without any rime or reason or notice are not made excusable by your damage control effort or your references to advertisers.

Advertising is placed where there is an audience. When that audience leaves the advertising venue, the sponsors are advertising to no one. The exodus you have caused is growing and will have its own repercussions.

We have asked the owners to reinstate the non-aviation forum as it was. They have responded with a substitue that many of us consider to be inadequate, myself included. They have also offered no explanation of why they put people like TonyC into limbo and blocked his posts for a time. That may be satisfactory to them and to you, but it is not satisfactory to many of us.

To date I personally have not been banned, penalized or placed in limbo, with nearly 3,000 posts to my credit. I am not angry due to anything that has been done to me personally. I simply object to what has been done to others and to your recent change in policy.

Yes, they "own" the forum and can do as they please. In turn we "own" our freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to choose both where we will read, where we will write, where we will go and where we will stay, and what terms we will accept.

It is best defined as freedom of choice. Your "owners" and advertisers have exercised there "freedom of choice". Your membership is doing the same.

In short, we have found another location that is more amenable to our taste. We have invited people of like mind to join us there and hope that they will in large numbers. We invite your owners and advertises to enjoy what you have left as long as you can. You made your choice, we provided you all with an opportunity to modify that choice and you have chosen to decline. Therefore, we have made our choice.

Best regards,

Sayonara.

 

[414Flyer]

Thanks UAL78. Open communication will be the be how the current difficulties will be overcome, to the benefit of the users, moderators and website owners.

 

[PCL_128]

I trust that the regular contributors are starting to see that the board has it's old feel back to it.

Well, with nearly 1600 posts I think I qualify as a regular, and surplus1 is certainly a regular also. I don't think either of us feels that things have their "old feel" back yet. The only thing that will bring back that feel is if the fascist anti-religion ban is lifted in the non-av forum and TonyC and Chopper Pilot (I can never remember how he abreviates it) are able to post again. Until then, flighinfo will continue to have a nazi Germany feel to it.

 

[Flibmeister]

...the avweb.com lawsuit a few years ago? A couple of folks commented on an aviation lawyer, and the lawyer went at them and avweb.com. And I get the impression the lawyer made it hurt.

Yes, he did. I have some personal knowledge of that situation, and I can tell you that it cost four posters to that board many thousands of dollars in attorney and settlement fees, not to mention the fact that the BBS was shutdown because of it. And, Avweb ended up being sold to Belvoir-- at what was rumored to be a greatly reduced price, due to the litigation.

Those four posters not only paid dearly for the privilege of calling Mr. Wolk names (and making unfounded allegations against him) in a public forum, they also found themselves making public apologies for their behavior.

BTW, Mr. Wolk donated the proceeds of the lawsuit to charity. It seems his intent was to send a message about what is and isn't acceptable behavior in venues such as this one-- and those of that were involved, however peripherally, received it loud and clear!

 

[Galaga]

Those four posters not only paid dearly for the privilege of calling Mr. Wolk names (and making unfounded allegations against him) in a public forum, they also found themselves making public apologies for their behavior.

I guess the moral of the story is to tell the truth and have hard facts before making any statements.
I've had an awakening the past few weeks as to how easy it is to track an "anonymous" poster down. The paper trail left behind a post or e-mail is huge and very easily traceable. Most people don't realize how anonymous the internet really is not.

 

[A Squared]

Yes, he did. I have some personal knowledge of that situation, and I can tell you that it cost four posters to that board many thousands of dollars in attorney and settlement fees, not to mention the fact that the BBS was shutdown because of it. And, Avweb ended up being sold to Belvoir-- at what was rumored to be a greatly reduced price, due to the litigation.

Those four posters not only paid dearly for the privilege of calling Mr. Wolk names (and making unfounded allegations against him) in a public forum, they also found themselves making public apologies for their behavior.

BTW, Mr. Wolk donated the proceeds of the lawsuit to charity. It seems his intent was to send a message about what is and isn't acceptable behavior in venues such as this one-- and those of that were involved, however peripherally, received it loud and clear!

Yeah ... the avweb/wolk libel lawsuit. I remember it. One of the defendants was sued for calling wolk (an attorney who has been involved as a plaintiffs attorney in a bunch of high profile liability lawsuits) A "butt-nugget" (or maybe it was a dingleberry) I remember reading the motion which was filed. If I recall correctly, it included a description of what exactly a butt-nugget/dingleberry was (a ball of accumulated feces hanging from hairs around the anus) and the assertion that wolk was not in fact a butt-nugget/dingleberry.

Ummm yeah. A lawsuit. in court. for somone calling him a nasty name.

legitimately protecting his reputation and honor?

or

Abusing the court system to retaliate against someone calling him a bad name?

You decide.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Something I can't figure out is why this board is so hostile.

"Oh it's alright, I'm sure we can handle this situation maturely, just like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't that right....Mr. Poopy Pants?"

--Leslie Nielsen as Lt. Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun

 

[ePilot22]

Oh Yeah!

A "butt-nugget" (or maybe it was a dingleberry) I remember reading the motion which was filed. If I recall correctly, it included a description of what exactly a butt-nugget/dingleberry was (a ball of accumulated feces hanging from hairs around the anus) and the assertion that wolk was not in fact a butt-nugget/dingleberry.

Only on FlightInfo can someone find the definition of butt-nugget. Haha:laugh:

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in the past few weeks on here!

Thanks A Squared!

 

[Eagle-ista]

Is TDTurbo really going to fly his ice-encrusted 182 over FlightInfo HQ and drop a subpoena because someone said that he and 350driver are lovers? I don't think so.

I bet someone has pictures of this...

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 

[A Squared]

Only on FlightInfo can someone find the definition of butt-nugget. Haha:laugh:

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in the past few weeks on here!

Thanks A Squared!

Yeah, now imagine reading that description, and the subsequent straight-faced claim that he was not an actual butt-nugget in an official court document. The only thing that kept me from laughing at the time was the realization that somone was actually wasting the court's time in order to get revenge for getting called a nasty name.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

I wonder if they had pictures of actual dingleberry's to prove that the accuser in fact did not resemble one?

 

[ePilot22]

Nice!

Yeah, now imagine reading that description, and the subsequent straight-faced claim that he was not an actual butt-nugget in an official court document. The only thing that kept me from laughing at the time was the realization that somone was actually wasting the court's time in order to get revenge for getting called a nasty name.

I know. The judge probably felt the same way. He's got a story to tell now!

I wonder if they had pictures of actual dingleberry's to prove that the accuser in fact did not resemble one?

http://www.comicverse.com/images/captaindingleberry2.jpg

 

[Stifler's Mom]

http://www.comicverse.com/images/captaindingleberry2.jpg

I thought for sure you were a goner. :0

 

[Dumbledore]

Yeah ... the avweb/wolk libel lawsuit. I remember it. One of the defendants was sued for calling wolk (an attorney who has been involved as a plaintiffs attorney in a bunch of high profile liability lawsuits) A "butt-nugget" (or maybe it was a dingleberry) I remember reading the motion which was filed. If I recall correctly, it included a description of what exactly a butt-nugget/dingleberry was (a ball of accumulated feces hanging from hairs around the anus) and the assertion that wolk was not in fact a butt-nugget/dingleberry.

Ummm yeah. A lawsuit. in court. for somone calling him a nasty name.

legitimately protecting his reputation and honor?

or

Abusing the court system to retaliate against someone calling him a bad name?

You decide.

Oh for Chissake! Just call him a POS and be done with it already!!!

 

[A Squared]

Oh for Chissake! Just call him a POS and be done with it already!!!

Yeah, that's essentially what that individual did, and it ended up with him in court defending against a libel suit