Troy Martrin, name calling and other policy questions

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,529
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I posted this in the Spin Zone but I know not all will see it there and perhaps the question is really more apropriate in this forum anyway.

With the recent policy decision announced by the Managment Council earlier this week about the Troy Martin threads and their subsequent locking I wondering why there is a thread in the Spin Zone that is discussing a person from the Dixie Chicks aparently being allowed to continue where there is similar name calling. In that thread in particular I would like to know why is it ok to call Natalie a 'wing nut', an 'ultra maroon', '3rd grade drop out', etc. here on PoA. But conversely as announced in the policy it is not ok to call Mr. Martin a 'looser', 'idiot', etc??

Not trying to get anyone here in trouble nor restrict discussion. I am just noticing a serious inconsistency on how a new policy is being administered. It would seem like either it is ok for us to express our opinions of anyone or of no one.

Please explain why this topic is different than the one about MAG.
 
I'm guessing because one has shown that he'll threaten lawsuit, and the other won't.

Fear, my friend. Fear.
 
Our discussion on the violator who will not be named is based on the fact that it looked like he was trolling and loved the controversy or web site hits. Ignoring trolls is the worse thing you can do them.

We didn't delete or censor any discussion. The policy message just asked members to avoid feeding the troll.

One who started one thread who said he wanted to close it.
 
mikea said:
We didn't delete or censor any discussion.
Click to expand...
The thread was locked, that is most certainly an attempt to stop the conversation. A member of the Managment Council made the decision to close that thread.

mikea said:
The policy message just asked members to avoid feeding the troll.
Click to expand...
Again not the way I read the policy message. The message form the Council was "...there is a fine line between sharing a negative experience and simply badmouthing or bashing someone elses business. We allowed that line to be crossed, our bad, but we're putting a stop to it now."

The meaining seem pretty clear to me that badmouthing is not allowed and is considered over the line. In the thread about Natalie Maines there was the same kind of name calling that was going on about Troy Martin. So why was that line not crossed there but in the Troy conversations?
 
alaskaflyer said:
Yep, that's the way I read it. Talk about feeding the troll.
Click to expand...
Exactly it seems that there is a special policy towards Mr. Martin and he is to be handled with kid gloves so as to avoid a lawsuit. That type of special treatment stinks!

If a person is a jerk, then we should be free to call them one. Whether you think it be Natalie Maines, Troy Schaffer, George Bush, or the Easter Bunny. Restricting one's opinion while calling it 'policy' is just closest censorship.

I respectively request that the Management Council to revisit their special MAG policy and reconsider the ill developed censorship policy on speech and ideas that has been recently inflicted upon PoA.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
The thread was locked, that is most certainly an attempt to stop the conversation. A member of the Managment Council made the decision to close that thread.
Click to expand...
As is always the case here at PoA, the original poster CHOSE to close it on his own accord. In this particular case, the original poster happened to be a MC member and closed it himself.

We've had prior requests to close threads that spun out of control with more creep than the original poster had wanted...and we've closed those UPON REQUEST. We don't do it often and won't do it for every thread but when it's obvious that the thread has taken a life of its own that the OP regrets, we'll seriously consider it.
 
Brian Austin said:
I'm not going to post it twice.

Go here for more: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=97036#post97036
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure I understand your explination, tell if I have it right.

We can say 'Troy Martin is an idiot for his part in the ADIZ incursion'

But we cannot say 'That idiot Tory Martin, from the ADIZ incursion, has a stupid business plan'

That would translate into being able to say 'Natalie Maines is an idiot for what she said about Bush'

But again we could not say 'Don't buy the Dixie Chicks album because Natalie Maines is an idiot'

Is that essentially the PoA Managment Council's position?
 
You guys have it wrong on the closed thread.

I started that thread and saw that it was headed down hill in a hurry. I was sorry I had started it in the first place and should have known better. I asked the MC their opinion on my closing the thread and, in general, everyone was cool with closing it if that's what I wanted to do. Everyone agreed that had the thread been started by someone else I would not have the MC's endorsement to close it. In other words, if you had started the thread I would have let it run. My only concern about closing it was that it would appear that I / we were ducking a fight. Unfortunately that appears to be the case and you'll have to believe what you want about it. But for the record:

I have never been contacted by Troy D. Martin or any of his representatives (real or virtual) on any subject. He did post a link from his site to the thread, but as far as I know none of the MC was ever contacted about it. If we had been I can assure you I would not have closed it.

I'm always concerned about how PoA comes across to new members, and felt bad that it was likely that the first thread some people would read on the board was my thread where Martin was getting bashed. I didn't want a thread like the one on studentpilot.com here at PoA and I certainly didn't want to be the instigator.

And that's the story on the closed thread.

Chip
 
smigaldi said:
I just want to make sure I understand your explination, tell if I have it right.

We can say 'Troy Martin is an idiot for his part in the ADIZ incursion'
Click to expand...
Since you can't say for sure that you have all the facts (and if you do, feel free to provide them), I'd rather you not call anyone an idiot. That falls under the RoC Personal Attacks clause.

smigaldi said:
But we cannot say 'That idiot Tory Martin, from the ADIZ incursion, has a stupid business plan'
Click to expand...
Again, remove "idiot" and I wouldn't argue with any of it...but you'd have to prove the "stupid" part in my book since apparently you're now an expert in aviation-centric business planning. His plan is no more stupid than anyone else's, imo. He's chosen to develop a marketing plan full of glitz with nothing different from what the rest of the industry is doing...he just says he's different. Facts prove themselves.

smigaldi said:
That would translate into being able to say 'Natalie Maines is an idiot for what she said about Bush'
Click to expand...
Not quite. Natalie Maines gave a personal opinion regarding the political environment ON RECORD and continued spouting the same rhetoric to anyone listening. Again, I don't agree with the "idiot" part but her public stature puts her in a different position, similar to Streisand, Ted Nugent (for the right wingers), or anyone else. If you see a correlation here between MAG and Maines, feel free to expand on it. Your "translation" doesn't fit, though.

smigaldi said:
But again we could not say 'Don't buy the Dixie Chicks album because Natalie Maines is an idiot'
Click to expand...
Your logic doesn't fit. The above statement is a personal endorsement and plea (for lack of a better word) to not support someone's capital venture. You didn't say that above. You attacked the business itself, based on hearsay and conjecture, with no personal experience nor any evidence supporting your opinions. Natalie Maines has provided evidence of her position and her willingness to speak out about it.

smigaldi said:
Is that essentially the PoA Managment Council's position?
Click to expand...
I think I've explained it well enough. I'm sorry but it's really not a negotiating point. PoA is a community of ALL and we've accomodated a lot of different viewpoints, including providing a separate area for those wishing to play with the "hot" stuff. Our standards are not designed to please everyone all the time but to provide the majority a comfortable environment to communicate within the Rules of Conduct. The MC has decided where the line is to be drawn. Just like I have to live with laws that I may not agree with in my own community, you'll just have to deal with this one.
 
gibbons said:
Everyone agreed that had the thread been started by someone else I would not have the MC's endorsement to close it. In other words, if you had started the thread I would have let it run.
Click to expand...
Not true. I received a legal threat from Troy Martin and my thread was closed by a member of the management council. In response to his legal threat I created the website: http://www.MartinAviationSucks.com and have made a somewhat funny spoof video..More are in the works.

My thread that was closed is: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7952
 
jangell said:
Not true. I received a legal threat from Troy Martin and my thread was closed by a member of the management council. In response to his legal threat I created the website: http://www.MartinAviationSucks.com and have made a somewhat funny spoof video..More are in the works.

My thread that was closed is: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7952
Click to expand...
And a reason was given for the closure:

"Nor are we interested in becoming a battleground between Martin Aviation and those who do not like Martin Aviation."

What part of this message are people missing here?
 
Brian Austin said:
Since you can't say for sure that you have all the facts (and if you do, feel free to provide them), I'd rather you not call anyone an idiot. That falls under the RoC Personal Attacks clause.


Again, remove "idiot" and I wouldn't argue with any of it...but you'd have to prove the "stupid" part in my book since apparently you're now an expert in aviation-centric business planning. His plan is no more stupid than anyone else's, imo. He's chosen to develop a marketing plan full of glitz with nothing different from what the rest of the industry is doing...he just says he's different. Facts prove themselves.


Not quite. Natalie Maines gave a personal opinion regarding the political environment ON RECORD and continued spouting the same rhetoric to anyone listening. Again, I don't agree with the "idiot" part but her public stature puts her in a different position, similar to Streisand, Ted Nugent (for the right wingers), or anyone else. If you see a correlation here between MAG and Maines, feel free to expand on it. Your "translation" doesn't fit, though.


Your logic doesn't fit. The above statement is a personal endorsement and plea (for lack of a better word) to not support someone's capital venture. You didn't say that above. You attacked the business itself, based on hearsay and conjecture, with no personal experience nor any evidence supporting your opinions. Natalie Maines has provided evidence of her position and her willingness to speak out about it.


I think I've explained it well enough. I'm sorry but it's really not a negotiating point. PoA is a community of ALL and we've accomodated a lot of different viewpoints, including providing a separate area for those wishing to play with the "hot" stuff. Our standards are not designed to please everyone all the time but to provide the majority a comfortable environment to communicate within the Rules of Conduct. The MC has decided where the line is to be drawn. Just like I have to live with laws that I may not agree with in my own community, you'll just have to deal with this one.
Click to expand...
My post was an example of how the policy would apply. I was not calling anyone name. My apologies for the confusion. Change Troy Martin to Mr. White and Natalie to Ms. Pink. Putting your personal views aside and purely speaking to the policy, with those substitutions were my examples correct interprations of the PoA policy?
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
My [post was an example of how the policy woul apply. I was not calling anyone name. My napologies for the confusion. Change Troy Martin to Mr. Whie and Natalie to Ms. Pink. Putting your personal vies aside and purely speaking to the policy, with those substitutions were my examples correct interprations of the PoA policy?
Click to expand...
Neither Mr. Whie (White, I assume? Your typing wasn't the greatest here) nor Ms. Pink are identifiable as public vs private figures. Therefore the assumption is that they're private.

Scott, we're done here. The policy is exactly what it says. If you don't like it, tough. It's not changing anytime soon. Them's the rules. Jesse has put up a site with an excellent opportunity for you to post your views there. Feel free to visit and rant to your heart's content. Not here.
 
Brian Austin said:
Neither Mr. Whie (White, I assume? Your typing wasn't the greatest here)
Click to expand...
Sorry got called away before I had a chance to edit what I had just written.

Brian Austin said:
nor Ms. Pink are identifiable as public vs private figures. Therefore the assumption is that they're private.

Scott, we're done here. The policy is exactly what it says. If you don't like it, tough. It's not changing anytime soon. Them's the rules. Jesse has put up a site with an excellent opportunity for you to post your views there. Feel free to visit and rant to your heart's content. Not here.
Click to expand...
Gee Brian That is a funny thing for you to say. Not sure why you are taking this personally, I have certainly directed no venom at you, why would you respond in such a hostile manner to a honest inquirery?

For one I was not ranting, number two I am asking about a PoA policy, if I had a question about Jesse's site I would ask him, and lastly, I was asking for clarification about the policy at PoA. Of which it appears that you are now and/or the mangment council are unwilling to entertain questions about. It is a policy that appears to only be writen with one person in mind.

I find the policy and the explanation very confusing, judging from other reactions to the policy since it's announcement it appears others are also equally confused. Your personal reaction seems to me that you also are felling some discomfort with the topic.

I am dismayed that PoA is taking such a view point to honest inquirery.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Exactly it seems that there is a special policy towards Mr. Martin and he is to be handled with kid gloves so as to avoid a lawsuit. That type of special treatment sticks!

If a person is a jerk, then we should be free to call them one. Whether you think it be Natalie Maines, Troy Schaffer, George Bush, or the Easter Bunny. Restricting one's opinion while calling it 'policy' is just closest censorship.

I respectively request that the Management Council to revisit their special MAG policy and reconsider the ill developed censorship policy on speech and ideas that has been recently inflicted upon PoA.
Click to expand...

It's the managements board, the management can make whatever rules they like. Personally, I'm done with it...

Thanks for all the fish.
 
smigaldi said:
Gee Brian That is a funny thing for you to say. Not sure why you are taking this personally, I have certainly directed no venom at you, why would you respond in such a hostile manner to a honest inquirery?
Click to expand...
What hostility? You keep asking about a policy that has already been decided. I keep answering you. I'm saying the explanations are over, unless someone else from the MC wants to comment.

smigaldi said:
For one I was not ranting, number two I am asking about a PoA policy, if I had a question about Jesse's site I would ask him, and lastly, I was asking for clarification about the policy at PoA. Of which it appears that you are now and/or the mangment council are unwilling to entertain questions about. It is a policy that appears to only be writen with one person in mind.
Click to expand...
No, it's not written with one person in mind. One person's particular MENTION brought up issues to the MC that we hadn't considered before. Precedent does not equal exclusivity.

smigaldi said:
I find the policy and the explanation very confusing, judging from other reactions to the policy since it's announcement it appears others are also equally confused. Your personal reaction seems to me that you also are felling some discomfort with the topic.

I am dismayed that PoA is taking such a view point to honest inquirery.
Click to expand...
I have no discomfort with this. I see one person picking at a point, trying to make a big issue out of something that everyone else seems to have gotten past. MAG is hardly the first company to take this approach in marketing themselves, regardless of their claims. Nor will they be the last. The fact that you don't like them (as evidenced by your sig) but can provide no evidence or personal experience with them merely accentuates your bias in the matter.
 
SJP said:
It's the managements board, the management can make whatever rules they like. Personally, I'm done with it...

Thanks for all the fish.
Click to expand...

I am done with it too. It appears that the policy was a somewhat knee jerk response to the MAG topic. If you read Chuck's note his main concern is litigation. This was, from I can discern, the overriding theme of the whole issue. There was apparently little thought of how this policy would be applied to other people or topics on PoA.

The MC does a really good job here. It makes PoA a very nice place to be. But sometimes events happen that are not going to please everyone. I cannot agree or disagree with the policy as it makes little sense to me. All that I can discern is that it is trying to avoid a legal entanglement with the Martin Aviation Group.

greebo said:
Personally, I feel there are two main reasons for taking the position
we're taking:
1) Potential liability.
--snip--
2) Community atmosphere.
Click to expand...

So be it. Lets get back to discussing Gastons and see how much more we can irritate Anthony:D:D
 
Brian Austin said:
The fact that you don't like them (as evidenced by your sig) but can provide no evidence or personal experience with them merely accentuates your bias in the matter.
Click to expand...
I can evidence personal experience with them.

MAG posted on their website a link to "non MAG Customers". That link, as you well know, was a thread on PoA about MAG. A thread in which I posted. For whatever reason and motivation Mr. Martin has labled me a "Non MAG customer". My .sig is a response to his personal attack and lableling towards me.
 
Last edited:
Brian Austin said:
What hostility? You keep asking about a policy that has already been decided. I keep answering you.
Click to expand...
Your note sounded hostile to me when I read it, if it was not then I will not take it as such. But I still do not understand your response, it seems to apply in a non-uniform manner.

But lets just drop it and move on, ok??
:redface::):fcross:
 
Keep in mind that we on the Management Council only deal with what's reported to us -- we do not read everything on the site, especially the Spin Zone, to find potential RoC violations. In this case, the MAG issue was brought to our attention; the Natalie Maines name calling was not. OTOH, Natalie Maines is by definition a public figure, and the rules are a lot looser in that regard as regards perjoratives. Mr. Martin is a businessman, and trashing his business or cutting and pasting his company's copyrighted material is a whole 'nother story.

In any event, I think we can consider this one closed, right? And responses to that are neither required nor desired.
 
smigaldi said:
I am done with it too. It appears that the policy was a somewhat knee jerk response to the MAG topic. If you read Chuck's note his main concern is litigation.
Click to expand...
You need to read it again. It was the FIRST item I listed, but I specifically stated it wasn't the primary concern. Please do not put words into my mouth.
This was, from I can discern, the overriding theme of the whole issue. There was apparently little thought of how this policy would be applied to other people or topics on PoA.
Click to expand...
I also pointed out that Martin Aviation is a part of the Aviation community. Last I checked, the Dixie Chicks do not run a flight school. The bashing of Martin Aviation was also not *repeat not* taking place in the Spin Zone, and was not related to politics, religion or other heated topics.
 
SJP said:
It's the managements board, the management can make whatever rules they like. Personally, I'm done with it...

Thanks for all the fish.
Click to expand...
Sorry to see you go.
 
Um... "I'm done with it" and the reference to Hitchhikers and the Dolphin's leaving of the planet certainly sounded to me like you were announcing your departure...
 
Greebo said:
Um... "I'm done with it" and the reference to Hitchhikers and the Dolphin's leaving of the planet certainly sounded to me like you were announcing your departure...
Click to expand...
Hmmm - perhaps you should look at who they gave the gift to.
 
In any event, hopefully my re-RE-clarification has spelled it out more positively.

I am continuously amazed at how anyone can think that I would point something out as my main concern when I really meant the OTHER thing I mentioned was REALLY my main concern.

What I said in the inital topic was that my main concern was the community atmosphere here and the treatment of other members of the Aviation community. Martin's Aviation is a part of the Aviation community.

We locked two threads - one at the starters request, and one because it was a public disclosure of a private email. If you sent an email to someone and they turned around and posted it here w/o your permission, we'd close that too.
 
Greebo said:
I am continuously amazed at how anyone can think that I would point something out as my main concern when I really meant the OTHER thing I mentioned was REALLY my main concern.
Click to expand...
That may be what you thought you meant, but the way it was written is easily interpretted differently.

In your post you wrote " I feel there are two main reasons". Two main and therefore equal reasons for why you felt something, but then you went on to prioritize those reasons and assigned them a numerical value with the first reason being litigation and the second being community atmosphere. hence the conclusion that one really did out weigh the other.

If you had meant equal a non numerical bullet would have been a better choice and if you mean community atmosphere as the prime reason it would have been better to list it first and not state "two main reason" when you really menat one primary reason and a secondary concern.

But you have know explained yourself so we have a better insight into what you were thinking.

Thanks!!
 
smigaldi said:
That may be what you thought you meant, but the way it was written is easily interpretted differently.

In your post you wrote " I feel there are two main reasons". Two main and therefore equal reasons for why you felt something, but then you went on to prioritize those reasons and assigned them a numerical value with the first reason being litigation and the second being community atmosphere. hence the conclusion that one really did out weigh the other.

If you had meant equal a non numerical bullet would have been a better choice and if you mean community atmosphere as the prime reason it would have been better to list it first and not state "two main reason" when you really menat one primary reason and a secondary concern.

But you have know explained yourself so we have a better insight into what you were thinking.

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
"But thats not the main reason, in my mind, the main reason to my thinking is:"
Two primary reasons, the most significant one being the second. Last but not least, kinda deal. I mean I even put the point that the first reason I listed WASNT the primary on its OWN paragraph...

/me goes off to bang his head against the wall...
 
Greebo said:
"But thats not the main reason, in my mind, the main reason to my thinking is:"
Two primary reasons, the most significant one being the second. Last but not least, kinda deal. I mean I even put the point that the first reason I listed WASNT the primary on its OWN paragraph...

/me goes off to bang his head against the wall...
Click to expand...

By the time one got to that statement you had already written "Two main reasons" and had listed a numerical #1 right next to the litigation reason. Then went on to say basically, 'But wait! that isn't really the one of the two main reasons, this new one is the main reason'

Forgive me, but the letter was poorly constructed to convey your 'true' main reason. Hence confusion on my part, which you have cleared up in this thread, and I am sure confusion to others that have read it.

It is obvious you meant one thing, but the reader could, and in my case, easily came to an entirely different conclusion.
 
kevin47881 said:
Good grief Scott, the horse is dead, let it rest in peace (or pieces).
Click to expand...
I tried but Chuck kept marching it out to be beat again.

And now you re-resurected the thread again. :(
 
Last edited:
I absolutely refuse to criticize those who run the board for fear that they may ask me to join their ranks due to my articulation (slim chance, but one never knows). Sounds like work, which I assiduously avoid.
 
What is this, ressurect old thread week?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top