Irony
Posted by Paul Cox on May 27th, 2009
So I got myself banned from the NATCA BBS the other day.
It was pretty stupid. I put up a post that was intended to satirize my own tendency to rant (often incoherently) about the BBS’s moderators carrying out the BBS policy, which I believe is clearly censorship. (Someone had put up a post wondering why all the outspoken folks were being relatively quiet.) The entire post said this:
>It seems to me that this BBS is running smoother for this
>past week or so, so little infighting or mentioning the
>draconian BBS policy. I have made a corrolation with
>this “athmosphere”. Has anyone else noticed it and care to
>comment on said corrolation?Yes, now that the jackbooted thug censors have so many people on their last strike, people (including me) aren’t actually speaking their minds.
Such a great accomplishment. I’m sure the censor’s parents would be proud of their little junior fascists.
Paul
ZSE
Like I said, stupid. Intended to mock not the censors, but my own semi-hysterical rantings on the topic… but stupid nonetheless.
In hindsight, I think that the original poster is really on to something; the reason the BBS has been more mellow has very little to do with the moderation policy and a lot to do with the fact that the atmosphere in the FAA is changing. We all know that the contract issues are going to be settled soon, that we’ve got someone in charge who actually believes in dealing honestly with the employees… things aren’t really turning around yet, but you can see that they will soon.
Anyway, in a bout of incredible irony, the moderators apparently took my post seriously and took offense to being called “jackbooted thug censors”, so they responded by… censoring my post (deleting it from the board) and banning me from the BBS.
For life.
That’s some terrific irony!
Call some people censors and suggest that they’re enforcing their whims by power, and they… censor you and use their power to boot you. My post might have been an attempt at a stupid joke, but it certainly turned out to be was accurate, no? What’s even more stupid is that I’ve called them censors before, other people have called them Nazis, but no warnings or suspensions were handed out at that point. (Apparently the line you can’t cross is “jackbooted thug” and/or “fascists”.)
Now, I’m not exactly sure how fair this system is- a system that has the same guys whose feelings were apparently hurt by a post are the ones who get to decide what (if anything) to do to the person who wrote it. That seems more than a little messed up to me.
In a later note to his friends on Facebook, one of the moderators bemoaned his task. He said how his volunteer job puts him in a position of having to moderate a BBS that’s “incessantly full of negativity”.
I helpfully pointed out to him that since it’s a volunteer job he’s pretty much responsible for his own feelings about it and that he’s not a victim, and if it’s making him that unhappy he should probably just quit the job. I don’t really see him as a victim or martyr, although he certainly seems to see himself that way.
I also pointed out that it’s an incredibly ironic situation. Here’s irony number two about this situation.
I love the NATCA BBS. The infighting, arguing, and occasional violent outburst there doesn’t bother me a bit. I see it as a reflection of our working environment; as I said above, I think the reason that general tone of the BBS took a turn for the worse a few years ago is a direct result of the FAA taking a negative turn.
The irony here is that I love the BBS, but I’m banned from it. Our moderator friend apparently doesn’t like the BBS and sees it as a negative place, but he’s in charge of it. That strikes me as more than a little ass-backwards!
I’m often amazed at how people have a hard time separating attacks upon their actions or opinions from attacks on their character. Our moderator friend has mentioned this multiple times, how he’s bummed out that I’m attacking his character.
The thug/fascist labels are meant to be hyperbole. Hyperbole isn’t meant to be taken literally, of course. I’ve often railed on the BBS about how the moderation policy amounts to censorship of free speech and how I’m disappointed that NATCA members would, even with good intentions, sign up to willingly suppress their fellow members. The hyperbole was supposed to satirize my own rants on the subject. (“There goes Cox, ranting about those horrible thug censor bullies again…”)
Even if you took it seriously, though, it isn’t really referring to the personal character of these guys (all of whom are actually good NATCA members who, I believe, have good motivations for doing what they do) but instead refers to their ROLE and ACTIONS as BBS moderators. So even if you were to assume it was an attack, it wasn’t aimed at their character, but instead it should be read as attacking their actions as censors on the BBS with hypberolic statements.
The reality is that the NATCA BBS policy stinks. It suppresses free speech of union members. I’m not happy about personal attacks; I think that unwarranted personal slurs helped lead to John Carr’s election loss three years ago, for example. At the same time, I’m not stupid; I know I’m hypocritical, because I’ve posted attacks on others myself from time to time.
But you know what? Life’s hard. Get a helmet.
Seriously… that’s how free speech works, folks. If we all want to have the ability to speak OUR minds, we have to put up with the fact that some other idiot has the ability to speak HIS mind- and he might (gasp) say something that hurts our feelings!
Sadly, NATCA’s BBS policy misses this simple fact of life.
The final irony here is that NATCA’s attempt to utilize a many-to-many form of communication, the BBS, to facilitate more open and better communication amongst the NATCA membership, is actually stifled by attempts to put restrictions upon it. The BBS’s roots stem from a grassroots effort to utilize the freedom of expression offered by online communications, but now the power structure is trying to dictate the terms of that communication.
That kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think?
Anyway, this represents a bit of a shift for me on the Follies. I know it’ll be terribly boring to non-NATCA members, but I’m going to occasionally drag our dirty laundry here to the Follies for everyone to see. I’ve always said that I didn’t want to do that, because NATCA’s internal discussions and politics should remain within NATCA and not public, but apparently the union has decided I’m not fit to take part there, so I’ll jump on whatever soapbox I can find.
The bigger problem is that to non-NATCA folks, this will be boring. I apologize in advance and will try to mix in plenty of general audience posts in the meanwhile.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I’ll loan you my password Paul if you need access to at least view what the hecks going on with in the Third Reich of the BBS!
Let me know and I’ll send to you it on e-mail.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Sounds like the FAA is running the BBS. I haven’t been allowed to fill out an employee attitude survey since I made a lot of negative comments.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:20 am
Paul, I have been bitched out before by a few National people about comments made on the BBS. I have yet to be banned, or yet a warning. I have given myself a 7 day ban more than once, because I was so pissed off that I would not allow my self to comment. You have many supporters, if you need access, let us know.
The NATCA BBS sucks, and is full of scared little children, and suck-ups. “OOH, The sky is falling”…No it has done fell. We are now picking up the Forrey/Rinaldi parts that we can salvage.
Ahhhh, I remember the days that we could offer an opinion that differed from the NEB, and others on the BBS. Now we have moderators in bed with the FAA.
Sorry Steven R, I do like you, but working with the enemy until we have a contract….you suck. I admire your work, but do it on your OWN time, just like many of us do, WITHOUT recognition from our frikking employer, looking for a headline. This weeks FAA Today quote shows a “controller”….however, after opening the link, he is a FLM. FLM’s are NOT controllers. I am glad that you got a telescope out of it, however, NATCA members would have given you the funds if you had asked.
It is time for a change in NATCA. If you are a current NEB member, Executive officer, RVP, or a higher facility leader, I would be a little afraid of your current elected spot. I would suggest that you check out the candidates websites before you cast a vote. Then look at the past of the candidates. Do not be afriad to ask questions, just dont piss the BBS off.
So ALL of the RVP’s I understand that are running for re-election are endorsing Paul? Frik, I don’t think Pat has done that bad of a job. Remember, Paul was part of the decisions, at least until last year. So we in NATCA are eating our own current Executive President. Whatever……
Ask your questions here on this blog/website. You will not be banned, you will not be shunned. You may get warned (Paul has warned a few), but it is still very close to free speech.
Without mentioning names, I know who I am voting for, and none of them currently hold an office.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Unfortunately, those viewing from the outside see an organization in free-fall. IMHO, unless NATCA gets a new contract, and new leadership, it may eventually cease to exist.
What a poor way for a great organization to depart.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Paul,
As I posted on the NATCA BBS, you have done more for NATCA and our quest for a fair and ratified contract and better working conditions/equipment than most Facreps and higher up the food chain elected officials, myself included. I bitch and moan like any good controller, I taunt Jerry Lavey with any chance I get, I voice my opposition to the jack-booted thugs that have hammered on controllers for the past 3 or 4 years but you have a huge audience and message that has very much helped our cause. Shame on the moderators of the BBS!
As Dale Kettring posted above, I too fear that if NATCA is unable to get a new contract that is acceptable to the workforce, NATCA could be in deep trouble. I hold out hope that we will prevail, mostly because of the gentleman that resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, supports the working man/woman and has our backs.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:56 am
I used to stop reading the NATCA BBS for periods of time because I would get tired of some “few” of our more outspoken members and their ridiculous (in my mind, at least) opinions. But you know what? I kind of miss those days now. I do believe the NATCA BBS should go back to being a forum for vent. No restrictions. The NATCA membership needs it and I think our union as a whole needs it. And what the hell anyway, our membership dues should pay our way into that arena if we want to go in, not our ability to “play nice”. If you pay you should be able to play.
As for the moderators…what’s that old saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Or words to that effect? I’m afraid even well intentioned moderators can fall in that trap too.
JC @ FFZ
May 27th, 2009 at 6:09 am
The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear – stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others – must surely be resisted. ~Jonathon Green, “Did You Say ‘Offensive?’,” as posted on wordwizard.com
May 27th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Paul, as a “non-NATCA folk” myself, I can promise and assure you that this matter is not at all boring. In fact, it tells us civilians what we need to know, and what needs to be changed.
I know good NATCA people, though none to my knowledge manage the BBS. I’m not going to touch the content of your subject BBS post. I sure as Hell am going nowhere NEAR NATCA politics.
But from an outsider’s perspective, the whole concept of “banning” a prolific, important writer from a key bulletin board, smacks of an outtake ‘Animal House’ scene wherein a bunch of nasty drawling sorority girls scheme amongst themselves to uninvite someone from a social. The maturity level sounds like 21-going-on-14. At least when I put a man’s head on a cartoon eel, I regress intentionally. Others, though, just can’t help themselves.
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Quiet Rockland
May 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
This so totally reminds me of the “South Park” episode where Cartman is made the school’s hall monitor and turns into Dog the Bounty Hunter.
A paid-by union dues BBS moderated to such extreme that dues-payers are banned from its use? Lord Acton was right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The current leadership of NATCA continues to embarrass and spiral out of control. The entire Carr/Marks fiasco and lack of assistance bewilders me. Sorry about your “lifetime” ban, hopefully things will change after the election………
May 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Getting booted off the BBS is certainly not something that should be a major concern for you. With so many people censored from the board, Paul, you have a much larger audience potential on your (this) website; for that reason and the fact that people don’t have to have credentials to read this one.
I haven’t read the BBS in ages. The last few times that I did check it for anything of value, I came up with nothing but a bunch of back-biting, mamby-pamby, cry babies that had nothing useful or informative to say. It was more like a bitching board than a bulletin board and I found it a nearly complete waste of time. Thank the person that kicked you off what has become a time vampire for doing you the favor and devote your time to your more widely read forum. Let the masses come to you here, it’ll likely be a more meaningful and positively intended group than that which has sterilized its own forum into becoming a group of posters that doesn’t want to hear opposing or dissenting opinions. It’s a prime example of the negative element whose energy is working against making us a more solidly organized group of professionals and that’s a damned shame.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Well, you’re lucky, Paul. The moderator targeting me (said I was one of the twenty worst violators of BBS policy and made it VERY evident that he was going to continue targeting me until I got booted) turned out to be a cyberstalker who took to following me to another site, blasting my post there, and then sending his post to me via email just to make sure I didn’t miss it. I’ve since blocked this moderator’s email address but what REALLY gets me is that when I complained to the other moderators and their boss, not only did I get no action against this cyberstalker (cyberstalking IS a crime, isn’t it?) but instead all I got was, “We talked about it.”
My active participation on the BBS ended months ago, and my visits will cease altogether by the end of June.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“This so totally reminds me of the “South Park” episode where Cartman is made the school’s hall monitor and turns into Dog the Bounty Hunter”
This reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman turns into Hitler. “Screw you guys”
May 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks to all for the support. The thing about the BBS is that it *is* a timewaster. It *is* often a bitchfest, and I took part as much (or more!) than anyone else. It *is* often negative.
So what? It’s also remained a valuable spot for reps to get help from other reps, there’s never been a time when there weren’t questions/discussions about the 7110.65 on there, and new folks were always able to get help from experienced ones.
In fact, I think that the moves that the union has made towards closed-membership, limited-invite private email discussion lists has hurt things more than any negativity on the BBS- and the people pushing this “the BBS is sick and needs our help” theory have only encouraged that impression and characterization of the BBS as a bad, bad place.
The private listservs have benefit and do serve a purpose for some stuff, but when our most experienced reps utilize those listservs exclusively and stay off of the BBS more and more, the overall experience level on the BBS drops.
And sure enough, that’s what has happened. Many of the bigger TRACON and center reps with years of experience don’t use the BBS at all anymore. This hurts the new reps, or the area reps, who aren’t on the listservs and who count on that experience level being on the BBS; they go with questions and don’t get as much help as quickly as they could before.
Maybe, if instead of trying to enforce a top-down, “we know what’s best” policy of censorship and banning people and painting the BBS as this horribly messed-up culture, the union’s activists promoted it and encouraged people to speak out in a positive way, things wouldn’t be bad.
Peer pressure should be the approach used to try and slow/stop the types of comments that are seen as “bad”. Heck, I have only had to “ban” a couple of posters from this comment section- and only for making multiple racist or sexist comments. Occasionally I’ll simply shut off ALL discussion from a thread when things go too far afield.
But as a general rule, as long as you’re not threatening/encouraging violence or expressing outright racist or sexist views, you can say what you want here. Heck, I’ve left up those comments that are nothing more than personal attacks on me, telling me what a tool I am.
Irony again, Doug. He complained to the NM RVP and to my FacRep about a fellow ZSE controller who commented on the banning on Facebook. Apparently he didn’t think it was cool to take the discussion elsewhere. He told me something similar in an email (and I pointed out “well, I’d discuss it on the BBS, but you BANNED ME from it.”)
I guess it’s only okay to take the discussion to another site when HE does it, but not when others do it to him. Sigh.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
NATCA Gold Retired ’07 Says: “The current leadership of NATCA continues to ….spiral out of control. The entire Carr/Marks fiasco ….bewilders me.”
C’mon now, leave Bob Marks out of this. He has served the union gallantly and gave up his second wife and family for the cause. (His first wife was a cause!) How can you let this poor man have his airplane taken away? Have a heart. Dig deep into your pockets, again for some of you believers, and give up some skin for this hero. Let’s go now! How about a Benjamin from each local. We can do that people! Wake up out there in cyberland! Put your money down for an honest, NATCA endorsed, tax deductable gift for Honest Bob Marks.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
FWIW: I’d volunteered to be a moderator on the bbs when they were looking. I’d had experience as a moderator on a site that was extremely vitriolic. It was a site that dealt with the abuse of children by catholic clergy. People wanted to kill each other..literally!! My offer was turned down. Oh well, that’s fine. Personally I think people made a mistake thinking they had a policy, and that’s all they needed, their job was to enforce it. They were wrong, IMO; there’s more to it than that. 1 mod in particular espoused how *he* wanted to change the atmosphere. Sorry, but that’s a little too much ego for me for a position that is about serving members. We are a membership driven organization, and our decisions and applications of policy need to pay more than lip service to that fact.
In any case…I was sanctioned for violating not the policy, but an addendum to the policy. I appealed, noting, among other things, that the policy sanctions never were envisioned to be applicable to the addendum dealing with the lawsuit. My denial came within hours. Yeah, I’m sure much deliberation was given to that very salient point. OK, strike on me, I can parse my words and say what i want to say without going over the line. As a candidate for national office, I’m trying to be selective in what I say anyway.
But Paul gets banned, and it spills over into facebook. A moderator on the bbs apparently takes umbrage that we’re discussing it there, and “suggests” what he calls a “better idea”: that we take this “garbage” (his word) over to the bbs so as not to “pollute” (his word) the inboxes of friends and families. The fact that he calls people expressing their opinions “garbage” is troubling to say the least. The fact that he thinks he can or should be able to control facebook discussions is downright comical. His comment was later deleted, by whom I do not know.
The NATCA bbs is and should be a great tool. I have personally been told by our current RVP that I should not use it to get timely info. As a candidate for the same position, i think it is, and should be, a credible and valuable source of NATCA info. When people administering a flawed policy see an exchange of opinions as “garbage”, we have a problem. And the problem is not the policy, it’s the people involved. No member, elected or otherwise, is bigger than NATCA, bigger than the collective will of the membership. Banning people for life has crossed the line into vindictive behavior, and it’s no surprise, coming in the regime of a president who told people looking for info that they needed to “get a life” and an NEB that largely doesn’t support one of the most effective and efficient communication tools we have. I know that dealing with diverse opinions and personalities can be inconvenient, but it’s the democratic way.
The problem with the NATCA bbs is not people saying poo-poo and posting pictures of girls in bikinis. The problem is that leadership largely doesn’t want to communicate, and wants to control the message/spin. It’s time to vote for change. We need to change the way we do things, and turn the directional leadership of this union back to her members.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Ban me from the BBS and I will quit NATCA. The BBS belongs to me/us the members, and to have a group of self-righteous idiots banning our members is pathetic ! Who the hell do they think they are ? I can understand if someone threatens someone, but no that’s not happening. I’ll tell you what NATCA,……either you get your crap together or I’m out !! Reinstate our brothers !
May 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
As a random observer, you guys remind me of my 5 year old. Everyone, including my 10 year old, knows that when you use a private forum, you agree to their rules. If you want a public forum, go yell in a public park. Your own blog here even has rules. How you miss that hypocrisy is beyond me. General rules are a requirement for many reasons, liability being a critical one. Especially when you are a defendant in a lawsuit, come on. Use some common sense.
Not only do you guys drive reasonable people away from the site that is supposed to be for all NATCA members, not just the ranting nutcases, but you don’t have a basic grasp of Constitutional Law or the application of freedom of speech. Private forums don’t count. How did you miss that key point? To use the BBS, you agree to the rules. Sorry that you are so special that you can’t follow basic guidelines. It’s laughable.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Ban me, ban my dues until there’s a “change of leadership?” at the top. If I want a honest exchange of opinions, I come here, not there!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
If this keeps up, the BBS just might be useful again like it used to be in the early to mid 90′s. Maybe people will start being able to post again and share actual information that will help the cause instead of the rants that are of no help, that have become the norm on the current BBS.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Unite brothers and sisters. It’s time for the violent overthrow of the government!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
P.S. If Paul is such an activist for NATCA, where has he been? Anyone can bitch. Those that actually help NATCA are talking to congress, running for election, ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING. What are you gonna do??? BAN ME????
May 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Things can change, albeit slowly. It is interesting to note that as one forum appears to lean in a different direction, another (Your Two Cents) seems to actually be shedding the previous administration’s one-sided stance, opening the door to expressing an opposing position or opinion.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Opinion on what? On what a jerk Marion was? Yeah that was helpful real helpful. Opinion on what you thought should happen pertaining to this or that? Yeah again real helpful. Thats great I have your opinion. Does mean ****, but I have it. I remember when you could go to the BBS and get real case work to help the situation you had at your facility. Like I said before, hopefully there will be enough of you chest thumpers that get banned and we can use it again to exchange information that is helpful to the membership.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Funny awaiting moderation. hahaha how ironic
May 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I’ve seen many forum administrators act like they are heroically dying for our sins by taking the grave task of administrating an internet messageboard. They never seem to realize that the good board admins aren’t drama queens or always in the limelight or untouchable paragons of virtue. Good board admins step back and let the discussion flow, and only step in when things get really out of hand (i.e. if one member is threatening physical violence against another, or if some spammer is filling the board with male enhancement advertisements linking to computer viruses). If a board admin is really good then you hardly know that he or she is there, and you can freely get down to the issues that the board was made to discuss.
I also find it hilarious that someone who easily gets rubbed the wrong way by highly opinionated, extroverted people would choose to admin a board where air traffic controllers go to discuss problems in their workplace at a time when there are lots of problems in that workplace. It’s like moving to the equator when you hate hot weather.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Regarding Jlatc’s comment, I’m wondering (as an FAA non-ATC) how closely you guys think the recent editions of “Your Two Cents” reflect fairness in showing the opinions of a variety of FAA employees on the state of the FAA. It’s seemed like it’s using good journalistic integrity to put a lot of different views out there (a lot of them negative) and has gone about it pretty honestly (i.e. putting a subset of ALL viewpoints it gets emails about up there every week), but I don’t know what the full scope of those viewpoints beyond what I read here and in a few other places.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“if it’s making him that unhappy he should probably just quit the job.” Isn’t that what the FAA keeps telling us?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
GO BUDDHISM!!!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“using good journalistic integrity”
That in itself is a change.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
# NATCActivist Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
P.S. If Paul is such an activist for NATCA, where has he been? Anyone can bitch. Those that actually help NATCA are talking to congress, running for election, ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING. What are you gonna do??? BAN ME????
I don’t know, where has he been? Oh, yeah. That’s right…just running a blog that gets the word out about the lack of intelligence of our employers and attempting to cut through the BS spewed out of the FAA Spin Machine. I’m pretty sure that counts as (as you put it, with the caps lock on) ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING. Nobody here is going to ban you “NATCAvist”, just going to point out how stupid you sound.
We won’t get censored for doing it, either.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Writing a blog huh? Thats actively participating? LOL. I guess Jerry Lavey is the head of the FAA then isn’t he?
May 28th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Did Marks sell his Saturn yet?
May 28th, 2009 at 5:09 am
NATCActivist Says:
If this keeps up, the BBS just might be useful again like it used to be in the early to mid 90’s. Maybe people will start being able to post again and share actual information that will help the cause instead of the rants that are of no help, that have become the norm on the current BBS.
If this BBS belongs to NATCA, I would think the importance of a post is up to the individual making that post. Should the BBS be restricted to only whats important to YOU? Activism is like religion, you are right, everyone else is wrong.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am
You will respect my authoritayy!!! What a sad joke…hang in there Paul, you were right, and in this case at least NATCA/the Moderator was wrong…IMHO.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Problem with posting what is important to YOU, is that it may not pertain to the question at hand. It used to be that a rep would ask a question about a situation, another rep or former rep would respond and say that he was able to grieve this way or used this language, etc. Now you have people that have no experience commenting. Most of the time complete BS or worse, just to get a laugh.
How sad that the BBS was used as a tool for representing the bargaining unit, but then people started to use it to BS on it. You had to start wading through the loads of crap, until finally you just give up.
I am not saying limit free speech by any means. But the BBS was not thought of as a complaint board. It was designed to help the bargaining unit. I believe the bargaining unit should have a right to free speech, but it should have been done on a donation member only baord non NATCA web site, where you could post to your hearts desire about whatever you want.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Put Tormey III Esq on that BBS moderator. He will run the person out of town.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am
RevTC,
As the person on the receiving end of the “garbage comment” on facebook, I agree with you. I have been on the bbs for a long time and sadly it seems that during election years you will find much of what turns off many members but I always figured that they would just pass over, as I did, various subjects when they got too far off track by name calling and the such.
I was wondering why we can’t have a disclaimer such as this on the bbs:
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. natca.net makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.
or
The opinions expressed by the natca bbs members and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of NATCA or any employee thereof. NATCA is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the members on the bbs.
or this one I got from youtube
10. Limitation of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL YOUTUBE, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ANY (I) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT, (II) PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, RESULTING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF OUR WEBSITE, (III) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF OUR SECURE SERVERS AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION AND/OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION STORED THEREIN, (IV) ANY INTERRUPTION OR CESSATION OF TRANSMISSION TO OR FROM OUR WEBSITE, (IV) ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE, WHICH MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO OR THROUGH OUR WEBSITE BY ANY THIRD PARTY, AND/OR (V) ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT OR FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF ANY CONTENT POSTED, EMAILED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE YOUTUBE WEBSITE, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTION.
YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR USER SUBMISSIONS OR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE, OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY AND THAT THE RISK OF HARM OR DAMAGE FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH YOU.
The Website is controlled and offered by YouTube from its facilities in the United States of America. YouTube makes no representations that the YouTube Website is appropriate or available for use in other locations. Those who access or use the YouTube Website from other jurisdictions do so at their own volition and are responsible for compliance with local law.
11. Indemnity
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless YouTube, its parent corporation, officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to attorney’s fees) arising from: (i) your use of and access to the YouTube Website; (ii) your violation of any term of these Terms of Service; (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any copyright, property, or privacy right; or (iv) any claim that one of your User Submissions caused damage to a third party. This defense and indemnification obligation will survive these Terms of Service and your use of the YouTube Website.
Would not such a disclaimer—which I couldn’t find on the bbs main page—have not helped NATCA? There are many blogging sites that have such disclaimers which clearly put liability on the blogger and not the owner of the site.
Also on sites like youtube and many newspapers sites you will find the ability to “flag” an offensive blog, when a blog is flagged the moderators will then look at the entry and determine if it has violated any term of use. If an entry is determined to be offensive why can’t the original blog be left up with *censored* left in the censored part’s place. In the event that the entire entry is not offensive then at least most of the post can be viewed. But the one thing I do not agree with is the lifetime ban of a member in good standing.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
One of the boards that I read every couple days has a system where you can ‘bulb’ one post in each thread. If a post gets 5 bulbs, it gets a red exclamation point next to it to draw attention. Since the forum shows threads in a tree of posts (i.e. you are always replying to someone’s post or to the original subject) it’s easy to see what’s good and what’s crap. If people want to go off on some tangent, they can do so, and everyone else sees a long chain of replies to each others’ posts that tells them ‘this probably gets pretty off topic’.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Oh, no, I cheerfully admit to being hypocritical in that regard. There are indeed rules here that people have to follow.
However, here’s the difference- the rules here are pretty simple. The software won’t allow comments with f-bombs and other “bad” words. I’m not particularly crazy about that rule, but some folks talked me into it because they said it’ll help the Follies reach a wider audience.
And you can’t promote violence here. I’m pretty firm on that one.
But can you make “personal attacks”? Sure. People have attacked me here and I left those comments up- and it’s MY freakin blog! Can you talk about the Phoenix lawsuit if you want? Sure, I don’t care. You’re responsible for your own words, not me.
So yeah, I have rules that people have to follow. The crucial difference is that my rules don’t limit the opinions people can express; they’re just minor limits on how they express them.
The NATCA BBS, on the other hand, actively censors the actual opinions people have. If I criticize a fellow NATCA member, when does it cross the line from “permitted” debate into “banned” personal attacks? Nobody knows- well, except for the censors there.
To me, that’s a pretty big difference. It’s not as simple as “you have to follow the rules wherever you post”; what those rules ARE make a big, big difference.
Bah. I hear this argument a lot, and it’s a stupid one. The BBS has ALWAYS been a bit of a bitchfest; even back in the GENIE days there were rants posted.
Likewise, the BBS has always been a spot where people can get help; even over the past three years, in the midst of considerable bitching and general malaise, there have been scholarly discussions about the 7110.65, there’s been help asked and offered to new reps, there’s been an exchange of ideas and tactics to help improve NATCA’s work.
Is there a lot more bitching and unhappiness now? Yeah, probably- because the BBS is a reflection of our working environment. But just ask- the people who think that the BBS is utterly useless are actually a fairly small minority of the BBS users. Sadly, most of the people who have a position of power on the BBS think like this, so they think they need to “save” it.
The BBS doesn’t need saving. It’s not like it was going to collapse from people ranting on it. The only thing it needed “saving” from was the threats from the NATCA leadership to shut it down- and that’s mostly because the present policy is weak on communication and strong on top-down, militaristic leadership style.
More, to be continued later…
May 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“The BBS doesn’t need saving. It’s not like it was going to collapse from people ranting on it.”
It already was. About 15 ranting jerks have hijacked the BBS. 90% of NATCA members don’t use it, because they don’t want to suffer the abuse from people who are supposed to be on the same team. They occasionally look at it just to scoff at their own union. Is that what you want? Or do you want to get to business and actually handles business with the FAA.
As a woman, I can tell you I don’t want to see swollen nutsacks. That in no way improves my job. If I was as low as some of the ranters, I’d just sue for sexual harassment, because that is what it is to your co-workers who are female, and probably many that are male. If an adult doesn’t know that crosses the line, they should be banned.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I agree 100% Observer. The only one who consistantly helped the BBS was Verderamo. He answered the question at hand, without editorials. Like I said, if you want to rant or post nutsacks, then I suggest a fee based BBS not related to NATCA. There you can get your jollies on ganging up on fellow union members.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Actually, that’s a fair enough question. Stuff I’ve done:
And finally, I’m willing to stand up and publicly say what I think here the Follies- a site for news and commentary- and am willing to put my name on it. Which, frankly, is more than you’re willing to do, “NATCActivist”.
I actually agree with your basic assertion- that more people need to do more stuff. Our union, our profession, and our nation would be better off if that were the case.
It is a problem if people get bad advice. However, the reality is that the BBS still frequently has great discussions on a variety of topics. Sure, there’s a bunch of time-waster topics too… but that’s how things go. That’s how free speech goes.
You seem to think that you can somehow do a better job than someone else can do in terms of deciding what they should say or talk about. That’s arrogance to an extreme, and inevitably leads to problems, because in that system someone has to be in charge of deciding what stays and what goes. What happens when that moderator starts wiping out YOUR posts because he/she doesn’t like them, or you?
The reality is that reps can still get excellent advice on the BBS.
What’s more, the BBS could make some changes that would still allow for free, unfettered speech, but which would also give the users the ability to decide for THEMSELVES what and who to read, and who to ignore.
Lots of boards have a “ignore posts from this user” button. Don’t like reading Gilliam calling Pat a pussy? (I hate those posts myself.) Click on the button, and now you don’t have to see them. Want to ignore a topic that’s nothing more than a bitchfest or rant? Click on “ignore topic” and you don’t have to see it anymore.
There are also software packages that offer the user community as a whole the ability to “rate” posts or comments. (I’m looking at installing one here on the Follies.) Many of these packages let you establish settings that ignore low-rated or “troll” comments.
The thing about these tools is that they offer the choice to the individual as to what to read and what to ignore. They put the power of free choice into the people’s hands. Good stuff will continue to get good ratings; bad advice or bad posters will attain a reputation and wind up not making much of an impact.
This is a far superior system than the present method of random moderation from people whose opinions are subjective and which winds up limiting the free speech of the membership. Sadly, since the people in charge are convinced of the righteousness of their own cause, they tune out any suggestions from any of us heretics.
Still, I have faith that the BBS can and will continue to be a good place for NATCA. Unlike some of the moderators, I think it’s a positive thing, even right now or over the past couple of years. It doesn’t need “saving” through overcontrolling tightasses; it needs freedom.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Observer..shut the hell up, you dried up hag of an excuse for a female…
May 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Your in great company Paul. The BBS is a members benefit, where the President of this Union puts his updates. Those of us that are banned, don’t have read only privileges.We are all members in good standing. Our only crime is telling it exactly how we see it.I can look in the mirror in the morning just like John,Bob,Paul, and the Fokker. Pat and Steven and the rest shouldn’t have that luxury. NATCA the new FAA!!!!! What a joke!!!! Censoring your own members for voicing their opinions that differ from yours.Pat didn’t choose to obey the convention body in the Bob and John fiasco, but boy he will enforce the **** out of the Nazi/Russian/Laos/AfricaNATCABBS censorship policies. Labor Unions don’t ever do this to Brothers and Sisters, ever!!!!!!!!! Oh wait we aren’t a labor union anymore we are an organization. B.S.
Angry Fokker
May 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Poster #44.
If you wouldn’t say that to your mother, sister, girlfriend, or daughter, then you shouldn’t say that to another woman.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Agreed post 46. There in lies the perfect example of what the BBS has become.
Angry Fokker, is it relative to the question about oh lets say that: the manager of XXX facility is causing problems with an employee that is bringing their lunch in a Victoria Secrets bag. The question is how should this best be handled? Do I really care that your response is that the manager is an a**hole? You think that helps the question? Does that help the person? Does that advance the mission of NATCA? You get off on that? Is that what makes you feel big and powerful?
It is too bad the the few of you that posted daily on the BBS, has turned the tool into a real tool. Someone suggested a limit as to how much an individual can comment on the BBS, I think that is a great idea that would be worth looking into. Maybe then people would be select on their commenting and chose how they comment more wisely.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Paul you say:
And finally, I’m willing to stand up and publicly say what I think here the Follies- a site for news and commentary- and am willing to put my name on it. Which, frankly, is more than you’re willing to do, “NATCActivist”.
You only have to look at post 44 to have your answer about posting my name. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. Then again, maybe it does.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:57 am
“You only have to look at post 44 to have your answer about posting my name. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. Then again, maybe it does.”
Posting my name on another website a while back got me personally attacked by only one person (see post 12). Ironically, that person was…
… a NATCA BBS moderator, who not only jumped on my post, but emailed me a copy of his post just to make certain that I saw it. That’s pretty bizarre behavior, I don’t care who you are.
Beware of moderators on a mission or who have hidden personal agendas A zealot by any other name is still a zealot.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Regarding board technologies, I find that post rating systems work very well even when there are a ton of comments that diverge from the original topic. There are many people (many lurkers that you might not know about unless you track views to a thread) who look through every post in a thread. Generally, when they are given the ability to rate posts, the good posts rise to the top, and the person looking for an answer can find it easily. This allows the board itself to moderate discussions in the sense that they indicate what posts they liked, while avoiding censorship. I’m not in NATCA so I might be off base here, but I’d consider post ratings before limiting the number of comments or having moderators reprimanding people for posting.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Paul,
I got banned from the BBS. I choose to think that is a good thing.Ramsden needs to be banned from being a moderator and having such a high opinion of himself.
Howie
May 30th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Hey Howie,
How are things at FLL? Are things looking good for Santore?
June 8th, 2009 at 6:01 am
no suspension should be lifetime – what an ugly way to command respect or compliance….
!!BANNED FOREVER!!
let the overlords have their way – banned for a week or two,,, then back and watched by the censors
never ban a member from anything forever
never
June 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
So, why do I stay in the union with the new rulers, Ramsden, Forrey, etc? They are so hypocritical and full of themselves. I can’t say I have ever seen someone so full of themselves as Ramsden. His brother was a good guy. No more union dues from me. Thank Ramsden for that.
Howie
June 15th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Paul,
How absolutely ridiculous, getting banned for life. So now it’s you, JTB, Bob , it’s hard to keep up with it all. It gets old reading the rants sometimes but the BBS is a good source of information to new FACREPS. If all the experienced people are banned for life who’s going to be left. I sure hope that policy changes soon.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Hehehehe. I wondered where all the sparring partners went. They are over here. You boys, come on back the water’s fine. Today on the BBS I posted this:
I hope to get some chatter going on the BBS reference the election and the issues before we all die from holding our breath waiting for the big announcement.
The “new” (not so new anymore) BBS censorship policy coupled with the addition of making postings about the “case that shall not be named” grounds for a violation fueled by the Moderators vigorous and haphazard administration and enforcement of said policy has succeeded in making it- the BBS-small enough to drown in the bath tub. IMO, It has done so by driving off posters, crushing dissent and just otherwise making it not the fun place it used to be. Having several of our NEB members (Paul Rinaldi for one) on record as stating that free unfettered expression on the BBS has become a liability for NATCA and others (Vicor Sanore for one) as stating that he is a busy guy and it is just a waste of his time so he never comes here anyway does not help.
Here is my feeble attempt to help save it before we can drown it in the kitchen sink.
Just trying to adjust to the new goal posts before they get moved again.
Spike emails me (that’s the Stephen Ramsden moderator guy everyone is referencing)
Micheal,
are you sure it’s the policy and not posters like you that drive
people off?
Ramsden
ZTL
I email him back:
Spike,
What’s up? First off, are you serious? I cannot tell for sure. If you are making a joke- haha. Really, you got me good if you are poking fun.
From my dealings with you so far, I do not think that is the case.
So, If you are seriously asking if I think my posts drive people off (if indeed that is the case, that people are jumping ship) more so than the BBS policy then my answer is:
Yes, I am certain it is not my doing since they did not start leaving until the new BBS was started. I was posting off and on since 1988 or whenever Genie was the carrier. My posts, in number, are down about 90% and BBS compliant so I am pretty sure I am not the problem-if the quanity or quality of participation is a concern. According to your logic-participation should be up based on the lack of mine. In fact, I can state with certainty that my posts at most have a neutral effect on BBS participation in regards to number of participants or level of participation.
I am guessing, hoping that the Candidate’s Forum blog gets some juices flowing.
Since they were not leaving before and I am posting less now then I am confident that I have not caused one single person to abandon the NATCA BBS unless…unless they miss me. Maybe they left because I am no longer as active and my hyperbole and opinions have been forcibly curtailed (self deprecating sarcasm).
If I am banned tomorrow or remove myself voluntarily the BBS will go down by at least one. Upon hearing the news no one will join or start posting again now or a year from now because Mike Esau is gone.
We have not even established if the death of the BBS is a problem or a Godsend.
On another note. Kudos to you and the other moderators for whatever induced you to step out of the debate and just do your jobs. I always thought and still do that it was a conflict of interest and bad for NATCA to have the moderators debating and arguing with the membership about the policy they have to administer.
What’s really funny is you guys quit waving the pom-poms, posts have gone way down as y’alls campaign was taking up about 30% of the band width.
Look forward to hearing from you,
Mike
Seriously folks. I’m all for intelligent oversight. Here are my violations to date.
1) Used the word “racoon head and “Mica” in the same sentence. This same offense nailed about 10 people.
2)Called a blood money taker from Alaska to Washington State a loser (not by name although I am not sure if that should make a difference)
3) Posting the NEB’s statements about the Gilding/NATCA case. Info available on the same web site.- Overturned and reposted
4) Posting the exact same post from above about a month later.- got a get out of jail free card as long as I stopped posting it and agreed to not air the results on the BBS.
If you can’t eat it or have sex with it just shoot it.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
And another thing. Some are complaining about posts that are not work related-those that are mostly opinion, criticisms, attacks, etc.
Wrap your head around this.
I wish people would keep all that work related stuff off there. It’s boring and just breaks up the really interesting fire fights.
Yeah. As ridiculous as that statement sounds-whatever contempt and disbelief it generataes in your psyche is the same in my psyche for your holier than thou dribble.
Think about it. The “wothless, divisive” posts get thousands of views. The work related posts get a few 100, Now that we have effectively gotten rid of the offensive pole dancers no one is coming to the bar and the business of the union suffers as a result.
Rodney Turner, Verdarmo, Bellino, Walton, Lumbard, Gilliam, Mad Dog, and on and on are all gone or going. Why? It’s a new and friendlier place?