PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the Benghazi thread?



Measure Man
05-16-2013, 08:15 PM
What happened to the Benghazi thread? OP delete it or Admin remove it?

State Dept. is editing it.

VFFTSGT
05-16-2013, 08:21 PM
What happened to the Benghazi thread? OP delete it or Admin remove it?

tiredretiredE7
05-16-2013, 08:23 PM
Correct. I wholly concur with action taken.

I recommend either banning or at least adding WP jr after their forum names. I have previously complained about other forum members being racist toward Asians but the mods did not reply to those reports. I am glad to see the Mods have changed for the better.

VFFTSGT
05-16-2013, 08:26 PM
State Dept. is editing it.

Figures...lol

tiredretiredE7
05-16-2013, 08:26 PM
What happened to the Benghazi thread? OP delete it or Admin remove it?

Some of our less than professional forum members decided it was ok to make fun of the way Asians speak English. TAK warned them and they continued to make racist comments.

tiredretiredE7
05-16-2013, 08:30 PM
Correct. I wholly concur with action taken.

I recommend either banning or at least adding WP jr after their forum names. I have previously complained about other forum members being racist toward Asians but the mods did not reply to those reports. I am glad to see the Mods have changed for the better.

VFFTSGT
05-16-2013, 08:33 PM
State Dept. is editing it.

Figures...lol


I tried to maintain order, it failed.
I will be asking for resignation letters.

To answer question:
OP did not delete it.
I am not aware OPs can delete whole threads.

I don't know if you still can but use to an OP could delete the OP and the entire thread would go away.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 08:44 PM
Some of our less than professional forum members decided it was ok to make fun of the way Asians speak English. TAK warned them and they continued to make racist comments.

Saying "[Yes, this is racist Grim - ForumAdmin]" is not being racist towards anyone and anyone who wants to say it is, I say a big FU in return. Thank you for your time.

There was stuff in that thread that went way beyond of poking fun at the way people talk. If the thread was removed it was most certainly due to the other stuff...not from that.

Using a fake accent to depict a member of any ethnicity is perceived on this board, by several members, as racist. It is therefore disruptive, whether you believe it to be or not. The forum members have informed you this offends them. The Forum admins have informed you that you are in violation of community policy. Please do not continue to press the case regarding your previous comments.

And if that's the way this game is going to be played then I will play it too. Then, it will be abundantly clear to everyone how selectively the rules are enforced around here.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 08:57 PM
Looks like some people are overdue with their diversity CBT.

I am an equal opportunity offender.

tiredretiredE7
05-16-2013, 09:07 PM
Saying "[Yes, this is racist Grim - ForumAdmin]" is not being racist towards anyone and anyone who wants to say it is, I say a big FU in return. Thank you for your time.

There was stuff in that thread that went way beyond of poking fun at the way people talk. If the thread was removed it was most certainly due to the other stuff...not from that.

Using a fake accent to depict a member of any ethnicity is perceived on this board, by several members, as racist. It is therefore disruptive, whether you believe it to be or not. The forum members have informed you this offends them. The Forum admins have informed you that you are in violation of community policy. Please do not continue to press the case regarding your previous comments.

I did not report this post. I graciously accept your FU if you are a woman. It was another post which still exists so I believed the Mods were OKing it so I did not report this in the Benghazi thread. The Benghazi thread did have some very good stuff in it and I wish I would have copy and pasted the comments.

Bunch
05-16-2013, 09:18 PM
There is something really wrong with these boards. Posts are coming in and then appear out of order. Any explanation for this?

USAF-Controller
05-16-2013, 09:19 PM
The Benghazi thread needed to die. It was so far off topic and so full of stupidity, hate and fear that it had become a joke all the way around.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 09:21 PM
I do not wish to engage in an argument with you Grim.
What you should realize is, our actions are not targeted against you. In fact, I was lenient. Repeated violation of the policies is grounds for a ban. I could have given you an infraction. I could have banned you. I could have deleted your entire message, but I simply removed the portion that offended users, and allowed you to defend your views.

The Benghazi thread was initially edited and later then taken down, as complaints continued pouring in - despite warnings and despite the removal of offending messages... And here we are again, arguing over it.

Look, yes, these forums have lived on their own, for better or worse, for years. We do care that our readers and that this community are engaged wth us, with our stories, but we are understaffed. Allowing you all to police yourselves has not worked, and we are simply attempting help clean up a lot of the discourse that happens here.

There was a comment some months ago about why everyone was "Top Brass." The fact of the matter is, nearly all of you are "Top Brass" because newer members are driven away and it is by comments like some made in the Benghazi thread. Not one of us at Military Times wants to censor your opinions. We are only asking that you all make the effort to use language that is less offensive and discussion tactics that rely less on personal attacks.

- ForumAdmin

And that's all fine and good as long as the rules are equally applied and followed. If they are not, I will now be pointing it out at every opportunity.

Tak
05-16-2013, 09:36 PM
I do not wish to engage in an argument with you Grim.
What you should realize is, our actions are not targeted against you. In fact, I was lenient. Repeated violation of the policies is grounds for a ban. I could have given you an infraction. I could have banned you. I could have deleted your entire message, but I simply removed the portion that offended users, and allowed you to defend your views.

The Benghazi thread was initially edited and later then taken down, as complaints continued pouring in - despite warnings and despite the removal of offending messages... And here we are again, arguing over it.

Look, yes, these forums have lived on their own, for better or worse, for years. We do care that our readers and that this community are engaged wth us, with our stories, but we are understaffed. Allowing you all to police yourselves has not worked, and we are simply attempting help clean up a lot of the discourse that happens here.

There was a comment some months ago about why everyone was "Top Brass." The fact of the matter is, nearly all of you are "Top Brass" because newer members are driven away and it is by comments like some made in the Benghazi thread. Not one of us at Military Times wants to censor your opinions. We are only asking that you all make the effort to use language that is less offensive and discussion tactics that rely less on personal attacks.

- ForumAdmin

+1........

VFFTSGT
05-16-2013, 09:59 PM
I do not wish to engage in an argument with you Grim.
What you should realize is, our actions are not targeted against you. In fact, I was lenient. Repeated violation of the policies is grounds for a ban. I could have given you an infraction. I could have banned you. I could have deleted your entire message, but I simply removed the portion that offended users, and allowed you to defend your views.

The Benghazi thread was initially edited and later then taken down, as complaints continued pouring in - despite warnings and despite the removal of offending messages... And here we are again, arguing over it.

Look, yes, these forums have lived on their own, for better or worse, for years. We do care that our readers and that this community are engaged wth us, with our stories, but we are understaffed. Allowing you all to police yourselves has not worked, and we are simply attempting help clean up a lot of the discourse that happens here.

There was a comment some months ago about why everyone was "Top Brass." The fact of the matter is, nearly all of you are "Top Brass" because newer members are driven away and it is by comments like some made in the Benghazi thread. Not one of us at Military Times wants to censor your opinions. We are only asking that you all make the effort to use language that is less offensive and discussion tactics that rely less on personal attacks.

- ForumAdmin

Yes, it is annoying when people cannot engage in logical debate and even more annoying when they result to constant ad hominems.

I would like to ask you suspend/ban members who are repeatedly engaging in offensive behavior and delete their post rather than delete an entire thread that had some reasonable arguments going on.



We are looking into the timing issue. Essentially, the forum is hosted by a "bunch" (no pun intended) of computers. They sometimes become out of sync with one another. Particularly today and yesterday, there have been significant problems with the systems.

- ForumAdmin

It has actually been happening since the last "upgrade" or whatever the last big change was a few weeks ago that made the "www. airforcetimes.com/forums" URL not work anymore (and still doesn't work). It has happened in the past before too after an "upgrade."

Robert F. Dorr
05-16-2013, 10:01 PM
I do not wish to engage in an argument with you Grim.
What you should realize is, our actions are not targeted against you. In fact, I was lenient. Repeated violation of the policies is grounds for a ban. I could have given you an infraction. I could have banned you. I could have deleted your entire message, but I simply removed the portion that offended users, and allowed you to defend your views.

The Benghazi thread was initially edited and later then taken down, as complaints continued pouring in - despite warnings and despite the removal of offending messages... And here we are again, arguing over it.

Look, yes, these forums have lived on their own, for better or worse, for years. We do care that our readers and that this community are engaged wth us, with our stories, but we are understaffed. Allowing you all to police yourselves has not worked, and we are simply attempting help clean up a lot of the discourse that happens here.

There was a comment some months ago about why everyone was "Top Brass." The fact of the matter is, nearly all of you are "Top Brass" because newer members are driven away and it is by comments like some made in the Benghazi thread. Not one of us at Military Times wants to censor your opinions. We are only asking that you all make the effort to use language that is less offensive and discussion tactics that rely less on personal attacks.

- ForumAdmin

In the distant past, this forum had a moderator who had a name. That leant humanity to the moderating process. I can't think of any reason why the moderator of this forum shouldn't share a name with participants.

The moderator makes a strong point about newer members driven away. There are a lot of negatives here. In addition to offensive material, there's a lot of really dumb stuff that's almost certain to be a turn-off to some people. The controversy over Benghazi isn't as important as the Extreme Right is trying to make it but it is important enough to be discussed with civility. Even though I started one of the threads and participated in the other, the "100 women" threads are an example of stuff that might turn off some people.

Tak
05-16-2013, 10:04 PM
In the distant past, this forum had a moderator who had a name. That leant humanity to the moderating process. I can't think of any reason why the moderator of this forum shouldn't share a name with participants.

The moderator makes a strong point about newer members driven away. There are a lot of negatives here. In addition to offensive material, there's a lot of really dumb stuff that's almost certain to be a turn-off to some people. The controversy over Benghazi isn't as important as the Extreme Right is trying to make it but it is important enough to be discussed with civility. Even though I started one of the threads and participated in the other, the "100 women" threads are an example of stuff that might turn off some people.

The 100 women thread is a morale builder for forward deployed personnel.
After Grimreaper ruined my Benghazi thread, led to deletion, he now just created a new one.

VFFTSGT
05-16-2013, 10:13 PM
In the distant past, this forum had a moderator who had a name. That leant humanity to the moderating process. I can't think of any reason why the moderator of this forum shouldn't share a name with participants.

The moderator makes a strong point about newer members driven away. There are a lot of negatives here. In addition to offensive material, there's a lot of really dumb stuff that's almost certain to be a turn-off to some people. The controversy over Benghazi isn't as important as the Extreme Right is trying to make it but it is important enough to be discussed with civility. Even though I started one of the threads and participated in the other, the "100 women" threads are an example of stuff that might turn off some people.

Yeah, we tried to run off this guy named Bob that hates on Bush for taking away freedoms and his savior Obama restored them by signing off on the same laws... :der

But he just keeps coming back. :biggrin

But more to the point, we knew her as Alice if I remember right.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 10:40 PM
Yeah, we tried to run off this guy named Bob that hates on Bush for taking away freedoms and his savior Obama restored them by signing off on the same laws... :der

But he just keeps coming back. :biggrin

But more to the point, we knew her as Alice if I remember right.

I think the new mod should be named Nimda Murof.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 10:44 PM
The 100 women thread is a morale builder for forward deployed personnel.
After Grimreaper ruined my Benghazi thread, led to deletion, he now just created a new one.

I attempt to make atonement for my past transgressions. Proceed.

WeaponsTSGT
05-16-2013, 10:58 PM
To think I missed out on all the fun, I passed up that thread on purpose not knowing all the fun everyone was having in there. However speaking from an outsider point of view I'd like to say making fun of the way someone speaks is not racism, I'm sure more than that went on, but to identify that as racism is laughable.

Rainmaker
05-16-2013, 11:39 PM
In the distant past, this forum had a moderator who had a name. That leant humanity to the moderating process. I can't think of any reason why the moderator of this forum shouldn't share a name with participants.

The moderator makes a strong point about newer members driven away. There are a lot of negatives here. In addition to offensive material, there's a lot of really dumb stuff that's almost certain to be a turn-off to some people. The controversy over Benghazi isn't as important as the Extreme Right is trying to make it but it is important enough to be discussed with civility. Even though I started one of the threads and participated in the other, the "100 women" threads are an example of stuff that might turn off some people.

or on.... Rainmaker did not read the Benghazi thread either. because, Hillary Clinton turns him off. But, just like whenever i see her on TV. I am free to change the channel. NomSayin?

Rainmaker
05-16-2013, 11:42 PM
Some of our less than professional forum members decided it was ok to make fun of the way Asians speak English. TAK warned them and they continued to make racist comments.

Expecting people to speak English in America? Das Raciss.

RobotChicken
05-17-2013, 03:22 AM
I am an equal opportunity offender.
:spy NOT ON MY WATCH A$$CLOWN !!!!!!! :brick

VFFTSGT
05-17-2013, 05:55 PM
It has actually been happening since the last "upgrade" or whatever the last big change was a few weeks ago that made the "www. airforcetimes.com/forums" URL not work anymore (and still doesn't work). It has happened in the past before too after an "upgrade."

And duplicate posts seem to be a problem again as well...

Robert F. Dorr
05-17-2013, 07:10 PM
To think I missed out on all the fun, I passed up that thread on purpose not knowing all the fun everyone was having in there. However speaking from an outsider point of view I'd like to say making fun of the way someone speaks is not racism, I'm sure more than that went on, but to identify that as racism is laughable.

It's not racism. But it is objectionable.

Pullinteeth
05-17-2013, 07:18 PM
In the distant past, this forum had a moderator who had a name. That leant humanity to the moderating process. I can't think of any reason why the moderator of this forum shouldn't share a name with participants.

The moderator makes a strong point about newer members driven away. There are a lot of negatives here. In addition to offensive material, there's a lot of really dumb stuff that's almost certain to be a turn-off to some people. The controversy over Benghazi isn't as important as the Extreme Right is trying to make it but it is important enough to be discussed with civility. Even though I started one of the threads and participated in the other, the "100 women" threads are an example of stuff that might turn off some people.

Alice....I miss Alice.....

I like how you don't think the death of American Citizens is important though.....

grimreaper
05-17-2013, 08:10 PM
It's not racism. But it is objectionable.

I may object to a lot of things here, but I'm not going to throw fits about them either.

grimreaper
05-17-2013, 08:48 PM
This thread has nothing to do with the Air Force.

Nothing whatsoever.

VFFTSGT
05-17-2013, 11:12 PM
The Air Force could have something to do with it had we been allowed to respond...

grimreaper
05-17-2013, 11:43 PM
The Air Force could have something to do with it had we been allowed to respond...

Well now you are just being silly. Stand Down.

Robert F. Dorr
05-18-2013, 01:23 AM
This thread has nothing to do with the Air Force.

Someone in Congress said that the F-16s at Aviano would have been unable to respond to the Benghazi attack because there were no tankers available in the region. That doesn't sound accurate but it does have something to do with the Air Force.

Greg
05-18-2013, 01:57 AM
Someone in Congress said that the F-16s at Aviano would have been unable to respond to the Benghazi attack because there were no tankers available in the region. That doesn't sound accurate but it does have something to do with the Air Force.

Someone else asked, "What about the NATO tankers in Turkey?"

RobotChicken
05-18-2013, 01:57 AM
And that's all fine and good as long as the rules are equally applied and followed. If they are not, I will now be pointing it out at every opportunity.
:clock :lol:hurt:boom:croc

VFFTSGT
05-18-2013, 03:05 AM
Someone else asked, "What about the NATO tankers in Turkey?"

So they meant, "What about the US tankers in Turkey?"

VFFTSGT
05-18-2013, 06:09 AM
For an expert, you don't know @$#%

He knows it is all Bush's fault. What else do you need to know in this country?

Banned
05-18-2013, 06:25 AM
F-16s. Gunships. Maybe some cruise missiles. What's a couple hundred civilian casualties if we saved the four guys in the consulate, right? ;)

VFFTSGT
05-18-2013, 06:48 AM
F-16s. Gunships. Maybe some cruise missiles. What's a couple hundred civilian casualties if we saved the four guys in the consulate, right? ;)

We did it to get rid of all the WMD's in Iraq...

Banned
05-18-2013, 06:53 AM
We did it to get rid of all the WMD's in Iraq...

Agreed, in the case of Iraq, it wasn't "hundreds of civilians", it was "hundreds of thousands of civilians".