Suppressing Free Speech on APC?
 

Still lurking for rumors, and baffled by the lack of leaks on this normally fertile ground, considering the rumors that are floating in various venues. It's impressive how conforming everything is on these pages nowadays. I see you still have a few token dissenters, but for the most part all forums are really nice feedback loops for one set of ideas.

I guess it's not accidental.

One guy that I read for a little different take is Rube. He had a post that seemed to highlight the issues surrounding our contract pretty well, as well as a bit of information about a rep that wasn't flattering, but seemed to accurately quote a post by that rep.

What happened to it?

Too con-conforming?

Maybe Rube violated this rule:

"Any post that in the opinion of the site Administrators and Moderators poses a risk to the security of the site or members will be removed without notice."

In his case, a difference of opinion could be considered a security risk, and undermine not only this website, but the very fabric of society. I read the post and responded but had a very uneasy feeling. In fact, a few minutes after hitting "send", I swear I could have heard the silent approach of black helicopters if it had not been for the hypnosis I was under from the aliens who visited me last night at the command of GSZG.

Or something like that. Will I now be banned for "humor"?

I doubt it. Not with this post.:)

Did you think there was anything weird about that post, other than deviating from doctrine?

The gist of it was that a member in good standing wrote a long piece about why there won't be a TA, and the rep in question dismissed the member with an expletive. What I was interested in were a couple of pieces in the middle suggesting there was room for a deal to be reached, but it was being ignored. That struck me as more interesting.

There is always room for a deal to be reached. The question is, is it a deal worthy of reaching.

No, we don't ban people for either humor or lack of humor, but I will forward a recommendation to the Administrators. :D

If a post was deleted it violated the TOS and has nothing to with mindset, conformity, or do if a guy is pro or anti anything.

As Proof of this, during last summers TA voting period we were accused of being both pro-TA and anti-TA. FWIW both DAL APC Mods voted against the last TA.

I don't remember the post you are referring to so I can't be more specific than that.

Scoop

The expectation of free speech on a privately owned forum is an illusion.

I agree. That's the question.

The next question is: how do we know what's even available?
Then the next one is: don't we deserve to know where things stand?
Then: how do I tell my rep what to accept or not, when I don't know what's available?

Thanks Scoop,

What I saw didn't violate TOS. He did attempt to cover the expletive, but it still was obvious. Maybe that's the issue? In the past, I'd get the expletive removed, but the unrelated content of the post would be unaffected. That might work.

I thought the rest was worth a read. We were having a conversation at home, and I wanted to show what's rumored to be on the table.

If Rube is on here, could you please PM Scoop and I a copy?

I don't think that is quite so, unless you're saying that APC is advocating for certain people or policies at Delta?

I don't know who owns the site, but I imagine traffic is important. I bet you discussions stimulate traffic more than conformity does.

There is no such thing as free speech (1st Amendment Rights) on a privately owned forum.

I think their is some sort of censorship.... I haven't seen the ad for the girl that lives 3.2 miles from me in some time.

And no sign of Jesse for years. Total lack of under boob. Good to have Sink back though. This place is much better with input from everywhere.

The Blond or the Redhead? The Redhead was here this morning.

All I can tell ya is read the forum terms of service and rules. It spells out in pretty clear language that the owners of the site can remove content or users at their sole discretion. If you want to find out more, there's a big link on the bottom of every single page with the owner's info and forum rules.

and

Thanks. You guy are correct, and after a quick read of the TOU, I can see there is no implied guarantee of free speech here. Nonetheless, I don't think it serves the owners well to have a group of people suppress another's opinion, especially if they are moderators. Under the TOU, moderators have surprisingly little authority to represent the owners.

I've never investigated the motives of APC. I don't think their purpose is to take sides in discussions that respect the TOU, however. So maybe this isn't exactly free speech, but it's probably not about managed opinions either.

If a moderator wants to change my title to "APC Moderators Suppressing Opinions on Major/Delta?" be my guest.

Wow. Interesting theory. And defending an obscure, inflammatory post by rube. Bravo. Are you rube?

Anyway, you (at least the sinkr8 screen name) seem to be ramping up your presence after slinking away following your shameful conduct as a guy collecting our dues money to sell TA15; not disclosing it until pressed; and then doubling down on it.

It's no surprise you're back at the same time curly, Harwood, Spain, Parker, and their lackeys have spooled up on Facebook. It's clear your loyalty is not to the pilot group, but to your handlers who are now pressing hard to get back on the gravy train.

Let's try a credibility check.

- Looking back, are you sorry for your support of TA15?
- Do you regret joining the sales team?
- Why did you attempt to spin the failed TA as a win for us?
- Why are you ringing for these miserable AIPs?

Whatever Mike Spain is selling, we want the opposite.

I'm happy Curls and Parker post on Facebook. Then we know what management is up to.

More DCI 76 jets are next!

They are saving our Bacon and feeding the widebodies.

Oh wait......

Hi Purple,

Information is always amusing. Have you read the TOU's? Seems like there is a lot defamatory stuff in the post above that you can't back up. And of course it's explicitly not cool toying with other people's identities. Ad hominem drive-bys don't seem to be part of the TOU's either.

And I'm neither ramping, nor was I slinking. I'm here. I am a legitimate user, and I choose to post now.

...

As far as Rube's post, have you read it? Do you have a basis for being dismissive of it?

Looking to Rube for accuracy? That's hilarious.

That's how they roll. I've got $100, and I can't prove otherwise, that SinkR8's alter-ego is rube....and he wrote a piece he feels is worthy of reading, and he's upset no one here is commenting on it.

Pathetic. You're a 2007 hire, right sink?

I think there are at least 3 guys with multiple log-ins on here.

Apparently, they're done complaining about social media and have decided to embrace it with multiple personalities in an attempt to control the message. They will all go away after contract time.

APC's motivations??? Create income through ad revenue, same as most social media outlets. The site was sold awhile back, now its just one of many subject specific sites held by an investment group. Sorry to burst your bubble, but APC is what it says it is. No agenda except to draw eyeballs to ads.

Try:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/index.php

or

http://thehangar.forumchitchat.com/

or

http://www.cyclechat.net/

I didn't say accuracy, I said I was looking for rumors. His post was interesting enough.

You think you deserve to be heard more than him, or less?

That makes sense to me too. So they're dispassionate, and they want ad revenues.

If I read the TOU correctly, they own the site, and the moderators don't. So if they do a nice dispassionate analysis of their numbers, and they look at hits, I guess they can look at before this was controlled by a few guys with a single agenda, and after. They used to allow contrasted viewpoints, and we were strict with personal conduct. Now it's the other way around.

I haven't been here much, and many of the guys I work with feel that it's a handful of guys, so it's not really worth it. Is this reflected in the numbers? I have no idea. I just suspect that the broader the audience, the more growth they see in revenue. I think credibility and drama grow both revenue. It's all pretty simple.

What's also pretty simple is that they would clearly know if I'm rube or not.

So, deflections aside, I just want to know... Can we see rube's terrible post, minus the expletive he quoted, or not? Over 4,600 posts, I've had three minor infractions. The offensive part was redacted, the rest remained. Not a single Delta mod ever touched one of my posts.

So what's this latest obsession with manipulating content?

This is a new tack. Attempting to impeach social media with some sort of conspiracy theory that APC hates the people who pushed TA15.
If you can't win on social media...try to trash it. Was that your idea, or did one of your handlers asign it to you?

Good luck with that, my man.

Speaking of deflections, sinkr8, please refocus on these.

I can't answer your question, maybe the mods can. My own cynicism makes me think since there is no talking points or sales agenda or flight pay loss only a few contrarians remain. These would be hardliner political types who have their own agenda. I can only speak for myself but I welcome the debate. If you are outnumbered and are rebuffed that tells me the majority supports the rebuttal or more would come to the defense of the original argument. Just my $0.02.

Your theory sounds a bit grandiose.

Sounds to me like APC is simply a business. I've learned a couple of things today about the TOU's (facts are always interesting), not a lot about APC. But I assume there is an Administrator that balances out the various participants based on the business interests of the owners, and that it's generally in the business interests of the owners to run a nice, clean, credible forum with as much attendance as possible. I guess getting lurkers is important. I think lurkers get turned off trying to figure out the sound of one hand clapping.

So I guess the Administrator oversees the moderators, and if the moderators show too much of a bias, and it squelches discussions, removes threads that get views, then that's bad for business. All pretty simple, really.

I defended your rights to be here anonymously when you got here. It was a bit of a rocky start, as I recall. I defended Carl's right to anonymity when he was under attack, and I'll speak out for rube's right to post, even if his views are inconvenient to you. They might be of interest to Delta pilots. He had a rumor of a number the company was offering, and I wanted to have a discussion about it at home.

Yep, we don't allow contrary opinions. Its so obvious, the thread that says we suppress free speech was instantly deleted.................oh wait, never-mind.

All opinions are welcome as long as they are respectful and honor the TOU.

Scoop

I think the eyeballs are all looking at new hire stuff. This one sub sub sub section of a forum that is embedded in an industry information site is not a priority, I'm guessing. I think the site makes the money the owners expect or changes would have been made.

Lets discuss it now. I read it and I think rubes number was 19%. Probably a trial balloon floated. I'd take 19% in a pay only LOA while we stay in sect. 6 to negotiate the rest. American seems to think that good will has value.

Thanks Scoop. What was disrespectful about the post that couldn't be cleared up?

Seems reasonable enough.

I guess the piece that I was interested in was the rationale as to not getting a deal, compared to what was allegedly on the table. I'd like to re-read it to see what else was in it beyond payrates. Because it's certainly pretty tough to consider a TA without the major pieces of Sections 1 and 3. Is vacation sellback still on the table? Retro? Changes to PS?

Not my rumor, I have no idea. I still like my LOA idea better. But I guess then there would be nothing to discuss.

I think Rube should be taken with a grain of salt. His rants are borderline insane.

Has Rube been banned?

I don't know but I will look into it.

Scoop

All of rube's posts have been getting increasingly inflammatory (al la purple drank).

All that happened was he got a reminder to tone down the inflammatory nature of his posting and contribute in a more positive manner. I'm sure he'll be able to play in the sandbox nicely from here on out.

Banned? Do you see banned under his user name? If not, then nope... not banned.

Cool. You go ahead and work with rube and purple. Purple has an interest in identities once again, and ad hominem attacks as always.

I'm happy to discuss the post via PM, if you'll work with me to edit out the offensive part. I don't think the post was mostly rube anyway. I think he was quoting a member explaining why we're not getting a TA soon, and a rep going medieval on that member. Pretty vanilla internet stuff.

Scoop- maybe discuss the TOU with the Admins , prohibit multiple user accounts.

The obvious use of multiple accounts is out of control here.

No need to discuss. If you know of anybody using more than one - let us know.

Scoop