Actually, this was the message, sent by the mods, that stated I could be banned. Mind you what's in quotation marks was not my writing, but the OPS. to me, once she made that statement, lost all its validity because it became something more personal. Yet I was accused of attacking her. wow!

Without doubt there is some inconsistancy, although I would say that this forum is designed to provide an outlet for passengers to vent their complaints against airlines. Although I find the debate and responses of airline employees interesting and sometimes useful, it is not the primary purpose of the site. I have to say SB... I think your point was a bit harsh too!!

PHXflyer - employee of Southwest?
 

I'm not sure about PHXflyer working for Southwest. If you go to the Continental forum he has a posting about meeting with the head of Continental. I know this is the internet, and anyone can claim to be/do anything. But, taking it at face value, I don't see him meeting with the CEO of Continental if he is a regular employee of Southwest.

Folks, have no doubt about it, this is a Pro-Consumer website. We welcome and encourage members of the airline industry to participate as long as they acknowledge their affiliation and provide constructive feedback.

There were several reasons to ban PHXFlyer. Any lack of consistency in our banning is simply due to the fact that this is an all-volunteer staff, so our time is limited and we cannot be in all places at all times. This is why we need your help in reporting posts that violate the forum rules. With the new Infraction Points system in place, temporary bans will be issued automatically based on these points from now on.

Also, please do not post Private Messages to the public. They are called Private for a reason.

Lastly, we are not naive. We know that there are Airline Employees participating in this forum who do not declare themselves as such, in violation of forum rules. As soon as we discover this, they are permanently banned. No exceptions. PHXFlyer was one example of this (we confirmed it), although he was banned for several reasons, not least of which was threatening to call his attorney over a post that contained his e-mail and had remained unedited. Such threats to the volunteer AirlineComplaints.org staff are grounds for immediate and permanent expulsion.

In summary, use the Report Post feature more often and stay constructive.

Question: Along with the spammer posts, is there any reason that the edicated volunteer staff are not catching the obvious BS posts? Right now we have someone posting how bad Spirit was for their recent trip, that they bought tickets on AA instead, but yet they also posted how bad the trip was on Air Tran.

So you want "airline-incorrect" posts censored??
 

...is there any reason that the edicated volunteer staff are not catching the obvious BS posts?

Is that what the word "catching" means in this context? Censorship of posts you just don't like? You complained when I expressed the feeling that, at least at one point, there appeared to an effort, by the "airline"/ATA people on this board, to suppress content not supporting their view. If "catching" is not supposed to mean such an effort, what is a reasonable person supposed to believe it does mean?? If a post contains language unsuitable for a minor; abusive mockery; or similiar language then censor the SPECIFIC offending language and, if appropriate, issue a "violation notice," with "points," to the offender. Otherwise deal with it or leave this board. I read the "Air Tran" post. It sounds like the woman hasn't traveled by air a lot. In the case of both posts you, and some other airline/ex-airline people have made several responding posts. So it looks like the position of the ATA has been well aired in both posts. Even if this poster made everything up, and never set foot in an airport, why, in light of all the "airline"/ATA posts, (within the two threads in question) do you feel the airline side has been treated unfairly here?

By catching I mean exactly what was posted. That there are some posts that are obviously bogus posts. And I'm not the only one to call these out.

So you think it's OK for someone to come on here and just make up some story about an airline and post it if it's false?

The Air Transport Assn. ("ATA") censoring agenda
 

So you think it's OK for someone to come on here and just make up some story about an airline and post it if it's false?

So, if it's false, you want it censored. Right? And, who is to be the judge of what is false, or "BS," yourself and the other airline people on here??

And I'm not the only one to call these out.

"Calling-out" (subject to the rules of appropriate language) is how one deals with "false" or "BS" posts. Why do you feel "calling-out" is not enough?? I'm sorry Jetliner, but censorship is what people with a less than noble agenda want. The Moderator has told you, this is a board dedicated to airline consumers. There are boards dedicated to airline people.

Folks, we have decided to give PHXFlyer the benefit of the doubt and have re-instated his account under the following conditions:

• We label him "Airline Sympathizer" (instead of "Airline Employee") so that new users know where he is coming from.
• He publicly apologizes to the AirlineComplaints.org staff for his legal threat.
• He refrains from using sarcasm, personal attacks, and foul language in his posts.
• He sticks to facts and writes constructive and helpful posts (he can still obviously disagree with other users, but his posts have to be constructive, not destructive).
• He does not get into pointless arguments with other users.

He has accepted these conditions so expect to hear from him shortly.

Also, please note that the last 3 points above apply to everyone as well.

Despite our differences, I welcome this decision. Robust debate never did anyone any harm..

We'll see
 

Inasmuch as I've noted web postings by Phx which strongly suggested he is, or was, a flight attendant it will be interesting to see whether those last three rules can be adhered to when he responds to a post critical of a flight attendant. The postings I reference here have been dismissed, by the airline people on here, as things I fabricated. No matter how you slice it, the tone of this board is in for a change. Again, whether that's for the better, or the worse, remains to be seen.

I think the tag 'airline sympathiser' suggests that the board are accepting he is not an employee. But, overall I think boards such as this benefit from a full and frank exchange of views.. and we will certainly be getting that from you and PHX!! :)

Hello fellow contributors to AirlineComplaints.org. As the moderator has indicated my account has been restored and I am again able to contribute to the dialogue of this forum. My reinstatement did, however, come with certain "terms and conditions" which I am now addressing in this thread. (Seems appropriate since I started it.)

Let me get one thing out of the way first. I sincerely apologize for crossing the line of what would generally be accepted as good taste when I originally posted to this thread. I was trying to make a point and in my effort went too far. Had the post been allowed to merely stand on it's own or be edited, removed, or otherwise dealt with by the moderator of this forum the unfortunate misunderstandings which followed might very well have been averted. However the responses (okay - just one response comes to mind) to that post started a cascade of events which ultimately resulted in my temporary suspension from posting to this forum. I understand that the moderator acted as he did given the information, or rather mis-information, provided to him by a certain member. I can understand that if presented with the same unsubstantiated and circumstantial evidence that I may have taken the same action.

Now to address the other "bullet points" of this "probationary reinstatement":

"We label him "Airline Sympathizer" (instead of "Airline Employee") so that new users know where he is coming from."

I think this stems from the notion that I am an airline employee. Short of turning in copies of my income tax returns I can see no way of either denying or confirming this. This whole thing started when my MSN e-mail address was inadvertently revealed due to the actions of a certain member of this community. I guess he Googled my MSN userid (fair enough since I Googled his Yahoo ID - however I must make the distinction that he publicly posted his Yahoo ID in his profile while my MSN e-mail address was supposed to be private until he posted it in this thread) and found a similar Yahoo ID. The rest, as they say, is history.

"He publicly apologizes to the AirlineComplaints.org staff for his legal threat."

My "legal threat" was related to the above mentioned post. I reported that personal information, namely my e-mail address, had been posted by another member of this forum. When my requests had been ignored I finally decided to contact my attorney. I did this only because several attempts to advise the moderators of this board were ignored. I knew my inquiries were being ignored because I saw the userid "airlinecomplaints.org" was logged into the board after each request was made yet no action was taken. As a webmaster, the owners of AirlineComplaints.org are obliged by law to protect the personal information of those who register. When I merely reminded the moderator of this fact and that I had been in contact with my attorney over the unedited post I was banned for making a "threat." It seems to me that at least in the USA I have a right to seek legal advice when I feel my rights have been violated and to advise those who have done so that I am seeking such advice.

"He refrains from using sarcasm, personal attacks, and foul language in his posts."

I can completely agree to personal attacks and foul language. Sarcasm is completely subjective.

"He sticks to facts and writes constructive and helpful posts (he can still obviously disagree with other users, but his posts have to be constructive, not destructive)."

I have always "stuck to the facts" with the exception of when I was rebuffing a personal attack. But enough said. I can live with this. Just expect my posts to be boring and without humor!

"He does not get into pointless arguments with other users."

I have to laugh at this one. Here's what was in the e-mail sent to me:

"* You do not get into pointless arguments with Butch (we will be keeping an eye on him as well) or any other member."

Anyway - it's good to be back folks! Advocate free speech! Don't acept "labels."

We have already given you the benefit of the doubt that you are not an Airline Employee. However, as anyone reading through your post history will know, your posts at AirlineComplaints.org are by and large in defense of the airlines, which is why we have labeled you an Airline Sympathizer so that new members know where you are coming from.

Don't undermine what occurred. Your request was not complied with immediately because we do not make rash decisions when editing members' posts (and thereby affecting their Freedom of Speech), and this was no exception. Your personal information was promptly removed a couple of days after your request after we had a chance to assess the situation. Let us not forget that you threatened another member directly via e-mail and that that is why that member posted your personal information in the first place.

As for your threat to the AirlineComplaints.org staff, it was So there is no need to sugar coat it for our other members. That is a legal threat and not even a subtle one at that.

Also, you have not yet apologized to the staff for this legal threat, so this term has not yet been fulfilled.

Sarcasm does not help our new members who do not know you and is off-putting and never helpful.

This is a serious website with a serious purpose, not an outlet for personal quarrels or comedy. Real people come on here to report real complaints. Let us not forget that.

What is humorous about that? Your pointless arguments with other members do not help out the member base nor contribute any productive information. It is no laughing matter and this shows that you do not take this site - or its members - very seriously.

How does your label impede your Freedom of Speech? It doesn't, it simply helps new members understand why you go on an automatic defense of the airlines so they can put your posts into context.


PHXFlyer, your walking on thin ice here. Your new introductory post above was defiant and not in the same spirit as your reinstatement. We will be keeping an eye on you for the sake of this community and based on your post above, we would not be surprised if you get banned again.

I apologize for what you perceived as a threat.

"...I will be contacting my attorney today @3PM MST to see what can be done further..."

I never knew that seeking the advice of an attorney was tantamount to a "threat." I never said I was going to take legal action, merely get advice on what I should do to correct the violation of my privacy if the information was not edited or removed. I honestly think you really blew my statement out of proportion.


This would have been more appropriate in a private message.

Again, do not attempt to sugarcoat it. In the context and tone it was said, it was tantamount to "If you do not remove it, I will sue you." The next time you mention an attorney or send personal threats to members of this forum will be the last time you set foot on this forum.

We will determine what is appropriate in our forum, not you. We want members to witness your belligerence and continued defiance so that the next time you are banned, they will better understand why. And yes, we are quite certain there will be a next time if you continue like this.

Just asking, is it ok for posters to post an offensive post comparing airline lies to a gang rape? I get certian members have offended people and you think they should be watched like a hawk but this person repeatedly posted on the delta board about being "gang raped" by the airline because he/she was lied to.
As I said on that post, it offends everyone, the airline passengers, airline employees, airline sympathizers and airline haters, oh and former employees too. How long and how many flags would it take to get this post down or censored?

Agreed. This character is about as offensive as they come. I wonder why it takes so long to get this idiot off.

We have removed it. Thank you for reporting it via the "Report Post" feature.

Not removed.....I still see it and it is 3 hours after the above post which says it's removed.

Link added to show where it's at......

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...3&postcount=17

We removed that post that was reported, that is a different post.

We have gone ahead and deleted all his posts and banned him.