It is only the insecurity of a poster to be overwhelmed by one or a group of anonymous posters. Either you beleive in what you believe or not. Unfortuantely there are those who can defend their position better than others.

The posters here are volunteers and 90% give travel advice in which they beleive. 10% have odd views or hidden commercial or chamber of commerce interests.

As volunteers, one would think the less rules, the more people would want to spend their idle time here. What is the incentive to help others, if capricious standards, and all censorship is clearly governed by capricious standards, are imposed?

Thanks, Amy, for reinstating the old threads.

Easytraveler: regarding 40 differents names...Wow, I guess I'm pretty naive about lengths people will go to monopolize the boards...though I agree you can spot the same "personality" when it pops up again and again.

Negative attitudes (i.e. "people bashing") are the one thing that will make me sign off and do something else with my free time. I had recently found myself spending more and more time on Virtual Tourist and Trip Advisor when planning trips for this reason, so I commend Fodor's for attempting to do something about those who negatively impact and detract from the positive intent of this forum.

easytraveler, you are right, I didn't meet the 40-fold personality, and I agree that's insane. I also agree that it's not acceptable that one person appears ON THE SAME THREAD under various screennames. I've never experienced that so far. Nor can I figure what sense it might make to have various forum identities at the same time. But then, as long as it's not clearly abusive the way you described it, I don't care. If somebody prefers to post as Il Romano on all things French, and as Le Parisien on all things Italian, so what? Perhaps it's a whim. Perhaps it's a literary pursuit, an experiment of creating various personalities (Il Romano being funny and a little brash, Le Parisien being extremely serious and without humor). I don't know. And I don't want to know, as long as it doesn't do any harm to anybody.

Aduchamp, I couldn't agree more. What you are saying "there are those who can defend their position better than others", and what klondike is saying, "negative attitudes (i.e. 'people bashing') are the one thing that will make me sign off", are two sides of the same coin. klondike, wouldn't you agree that a forum is all the more likeable and worth being a member if the people bashers are put in their places by other posters who go to the bashed member's rescue if s/he happens to be among those who are less able to defend their position? That's why I'm saying, let's have ten thousand moderators. And that's why the one part of that new rule (and yes, this one is new indeed) that I'm really opposed to is that no OP should feel as though the threads they started were their own. That's totally wrong IMO - it's the responsibility of the OP in the first place to admonish eventual people bashers, and second of everybody else. If a significant part of the posters act this way, then let's see who is going to sign off first, the bashed or the basher (or the guy with the 40 screennames).

I'll even go beyond what Aduchamp said, and I'll oppose easytraveler's last paragraph. No internet forum is the intellectual property of the legal site owner. (I'm not particularly speaking of Fodor's here.) Could the owner provide the content, so may he go on and create a blog instead. The point is, he can't, so he's making use of thousands of unpaid contributors. And they are making the rules; not he. If the owner wants to make the rules, he has to pay the contributors for their time and their work and their knowledge. As long as he's unable to do the one thing, he cannot do the other either. Yes, the owner has to bear the full cost, but he also rakes in the full profits (from advertising, from the better image he gets, in Fodor's particular case also from the additional books they sell, and so on). Please don't tell me there have to be limitations and exceptions to this general rule. Of course I know that. No forum owner except for a Molotov cocktail manufacturer could allow a forum takeover by Islamist suicide bombers. No forum owner except for the Hungarian Jobbik party could allow antisemites and Nazis to "monopolize" the board. So take my rule with a grain of salt. But please take it.

Just let me add that Fodor's, so far, has always been "my" exemplary forum for everything I said in my last post. Everywhere else, I enjoined them to act like Fodor's. Actually, my view of internet forums has been modeled on Fodor's. Perhaps that's why I'm so vigilant about eventual changes right here, on the best internet forum ever. But as I said earlier, I don't argue that everything is getting worse now hereabouts. I just want to make sure it really won't.

I do not participate on Slow Travel because of their need to censor and edit. And I do not like Trip Advisor because there too many people who a. don't know what they are talking about or b. have some petty vendetta against some establishment.

As noted above, I think 90% of the people here give their honest opinioon, whether you agree with it or not. So if Fodor's wants to interfere with a valuable source of travel information because of whatever reaons they see fit, then they will unfortunately suffer the loss of some posters. But they will retain those who ask other adults to impose rules.

Ditto about slowtravel. That's my anti-exemplary forum, so to speak. I hate it!

Franco: <i>"But then, as long as it's not clearly abusive the way you described it, I don't care."</i>

It's not whether you or I care, it's whether Fodors cares or not. It's their website and they have to run it the best way they see how.

If the world were filled with sane, healthy, and happy adults, our jails would be empty. The problem is that many irresponsible people grow into adulthood and continue being irresponsible. On this website, there are responsible users of Fodors and there are irresponsible users of Fodors. It's Fodors website, they have to run it the way they see best and not because you or I individually care or not.

<i>"klondike, wouldn't you agree that a forum is all the more likeable and worth being a member if the people bashers are put in their places by other posters who go to the bashed member's rescue if s/he happens to be among those who are less able to defend their position?"</i>

In the Lounge, it was more the opposite that happened - other posters would come in and join in the bashing. It got very ugly. People left. It's up to Fodors to decide whether this kind of activity is helping or hurting their business.

Reality is very different from the idealized world that you have set up. Reality is what Fodors has to deal with, not your idealized world.

<i>"The point is, he can't, so he's making use of thousands of unpaid contributors. And they are making the rules; not he. If the owner wants to make the rules, he has to pay the contributors for their time and their work and their knowledge. As long as he's unable to do the one thing, he cannot do the other either."</i>

I don't understand your logic at all. You are going on the premise that only Fodors gains, whereas I, as a travel user, along with many, many others benefit enormously from the free exchange of travel information that is up to the minute and sincerely given, precisely because that is no payment involved. Fodors is not the only beneficiary, we all are. I'd even go so far as to say that we benefit more than Fodors.

There are some who don't travel or don't share their travel information and yet come to Fodors, sometimes 24/7. Are you saying that they are not benefitting from Fodors having set up this website? And additionally are you saying that they should be paid because they are participating on threads that talk about cures for your grandmother's big toe or whatever odd topic pops up on a daily basis?

I don't follow your logic at all. You're saying that users have the right to set the rules, but owners don't? Why?

I suppose the next time you walk into a restaurant you're going to tell them how to set the table and cook their food because you're a user of their restaurant and they as the owners don't have a right to set the rules for how to run their business because you happen to be a user of their restaurant. Or the next time you go shopping, you're going to tell them how to arrange their display shelves and rewire their lighting because you happen to be a user of their store and the owners have no say in how to run their business and, in fact, should pay you for your unsolicited opinion.


Furthermore, there is no "censorship". There is, however, an agreement.

<i>"3. Changed Terms.
The Online Service Provider [i.e,, Fodors] shall have the right at any time to change or modify the terms and conditions applicable to Subscriber's use of the Web site or any part thereof, or to impose new conditions, including but not limited to, adding fees and charges for use. Such changes, modifications, additions, or deletions shall be effective immediately upon posting on the Web site or by any means of notification by which Subscriber obtains actual knowledge thereof. Any use of the Online Services by Subscriber after such notice shall be deemed to constitute acceptance by Subscriber of such changes, modifications, additions or deletions."</i>

You've agreed to these terms in this agreement. It has nothing to do with other posters and whatever imaginary characteristics, such as security or insecurity, that Aduchamp wants to endow other posters with. It's an agreement strictly between Aduchamp and Fodors, strictly between Franco and Fodors. Other posters have nothing to do with your having agreed to these terms.


It's very simple. It's as if you walk into a hotel with your dog and there's a sign which says "No pets allowed". So you turn around and find another hotel that allows pets. Same here. You want to post obscene materials, find some other website that allows you to post obscene comments to your heart's content. You want to attack other posters, go find a website where you can do that to your heart's content. You don't like the way the owners run their business, go elsewhere. There are thousands of websites to choose from. It's that simple.

It seems like such a vain exercise to constantly attack the owners and its employees, the editors.

ET, I think what has happened lately that some posts or threads should not have been deleted or closed when some still are here. Dutch's thread was tongue in cheek, harmles and got deleted yet the one in what they're wearing in Paris on the Europe board took a terrible direction when one poster joined it, insults, yet it is still there.

easytraveler, in order to be as positive about this as possible, I'll start with your one statement I totally agree with: “I, as a travel user, along with many, many others benefit enormously from the free exchange of travel information that is up to the minute and sincerely given, precisely because that is no payment involved. Fodors is not the only beneficiary, we all are.” Granted, you’re 100 percent right about that.
But: “Are you saying that they are not benefitting from Fodors having set up this website?” Basically, that’s what I’m saying. They are (and we all are) benefitting from the information available on this website. We’d be, as well, if it was Joe Shmoe having set up this website. From the fact that Fodor’s set it up, only Fodor’s is benefitting.

“And additionally are you saying that they should be paid because they are participating on threads that talk about cures for your grandmother's big toe or whatever odd topic pops up on a daily basis?” No, I’m not saying this. On the contrary, I second your thought that the information on this website is so valuable because no payment is involved. But what I’m saying is that if they are NOT paid (which is just fine as it is and shouldn’t be changed), the ones who are providing the content of this (or any other) website have to play the leading part in making the rules. (As I said, this is a general observation about ALL web forums, and I’m not talking about Fodor’s in particular here.)
Hence I disagree, of course, with: “It's their website and they have to run it the best way they see how.” If it’s their website, so they have to write it. Whatever I’m writing is my website, whatever you are writing is your website, whatever Aduchamp is writing is his website. So Fodor’s Forums is OUR website. Mine and yours and Aduchamp’s. And Fodor’s is just one of this site’s intellectual proprietors, one among thousands of others (you and me and Aduchamp and the rest of us).

Let me give you a far better example than Fodor’s (cause as I said, their business conduct on this forum has always been exemplary so far, and I hope it will not change). I used to participate on a language forum, connected to one of the largest (perhaps the largest? I don’t know) multilingual online dictionaries. They are running this huge site basically without any employees. They had bought the content of several dictionaries as a base for that site and put it online, and any further improvement has to come (and IS coming) from the users. People all over the world, i.e. native speakers of every important (and many a not-so-important) language participate. The website owner and administrator (one single person, yes) is actively asking for translations of idioms, rare (second, third and fourteenth) meanings of vocables in several languages, for dozens of such translations per day. A huge number of people is providing them (many for some language pairs, just a few for others). So what the owner does is making a living from the profits that the site is generating, without having to pay for anything else than the programmation and webhosting. Even the entering of the solicited new translations into the dictionaries is being done by volunteers! Only this way, the profits from that website are obviously enough for him; we all know that online profits are increasing, but not really enormous yet, and he couldn’t entertain that universe of dictionaries for sure if he had to pay native editors for each of the languages that he’s covering. So far, I’m totally fine with it, and even think it’s a brillant idea. Period. What I’m not fine with is that in the connected forums, he is enforcing (again, through unpaid moderators) an insanely strict censorship (and believe me, that’s an extraordinary polite website, no people bashing there whatsoever – nonetheless, dozens of posts are being pulled or clipped every day, following the most capricious and whimsical rules). So I stopped posting there, which may or may not be a loss for them (at least, I was just about the only one who could help on one specific language pair).
I’m not saying that’s what’s happening now on Fodor’s, not at all. But I’m sure you’ll easily understand what Fodor’s can learn from that example, or what we all can learn from it.

“I suppose the next time you walk into a restaurant you're going to tell them how to set the table and cook their food because you're a user of their restaurant (…).” Of course I do. Everybody does. If I’m allergic to nuts, I’ll tell them not to use nuts for my dishes. I tell them how I like my steak. And a friend of mine (a former restaurateur himself and a great gourmet) isn’t allergic to but happens to hate parsley. So in every restaurant, he tells them to leave out the parsley for him, and if they forget about it, he will send his dish back and have them prepare a new one. So what? But your example is a bad one because at a restaurant, we pay for our dishes. On internet forums, we don’t pay.

“Or the next time you go shopping, you're going to tell them how to arrange their display shelves and rewire their lighting because you happen to be a user of their store and the owners have no say in how to run their business and, in fact, should pay you for your unsolicited opinion.” But on an internet forum, our opinions are NOT unsolicited, on the contrary. By the way, this part and the rest of your post is not the best example for a respectful converse with other posters.

But also your third example is a bad one: “It's as if you walk into a hotel with your dog and there's a sign which says ‘No pets allowed’. So you turn around and find another hotel that allows pets.” Wrong. It’s as if there is an absent hotel owner who is, for whichever reason, not able to run his hotel himself, and you and I and Aduchamp are running this hotel for him, as volunteers; he’s paying for the electricity, and gaining the profits, and we’re doing our work without asking for any payment, just because we love to work with tourists and have plenty of spare time. One of us has a dog (not me), one is indifferent about dogs, and one is afraid of dogs (that’s me). Who do you think is going to make the rule about entering or not with a dog? The owner whom we are presenting with our work and knowledge? Or the three of us, though having to compromise in order to find a solution that suits us all?

On your Vienna State Opera thread (which I almost regret I answered in such detail since you are so rude with Aduchamp and me on this thread), you’ve got advice on which rules apply to the standing room, by various posters. Who do you think has made these rules? The management of the Staatsoper? LOL. The regular visitors, and nobody else. The management had to abide with them, and even the ushers (paid by the Staatsoper, of course) are enforcing them now. But they were made by the audience, more precisely: by a part of the audience who pay an absolutely laughable price (3 and 4 Euros per ticket), so are totally negligible from an economic point of view, but they’re there every night. They are the regulars. It’s THEIR opera theater. Managements keep coming and going. They have been there forever, some of them for fifty years and more. Every single attempt by a management to change the tiniest detail of how the standing room is being organized have been smashed to pieces by those “users”. Every impresario (even the current one, who is really a toughie) had to retreat, apologize, make it up with them. No, I don’t think Fodorites should act like these people (they’re actually a disagreeable lot). But it’s a fine example that owners and managers don’t always manage what they own.

“It seems like such a vain exercise to constantly attack the owners and its employees, the editors.” Who did? I’ve been very respectful with them, far more respectful than you with me or Aduchamp.

It seems like such a vain exercise to constantly attack the owners and its employees, the editors.
_____________________________

This is the irony of the censorship. To one party it is an open and honest discussion. To the other it is an attack.

If ET had said it it would have been an open and honest discussion. She did not, so it is an attack.

___________________________________

By choosing hostile words in the defense of Fodor's, it is still a violation of the new rules, since it stated it such negative and harsh terms.

Just another irony.

<i>But it’s a fine example that owners and managers don’t always manage what they own</i>

Franco, I've been enjoying your input. On the above, I can only say that this line makes me think: "managed" on behalf of whom? Companies used to be ultimately managed on behalf of customers. Which I think is your primary point. We, the customers. Of course here, we're not such a monolithic group, but I've seen internet moderation that seemed, at least for short periods, skewed so as to be managed on behalf of the managers and the ease of their daily tasks.

That said, this was my first day of reading the new rules and I think I see some useful clarifications there, quite a few "because we said so, that's why's" and perhaps one or two things that will cause me to think a bit more before I decide write a trip report or a lengthy travel reply. Lounge posts, that's just throw away stuff anyway.

Chiefly the notion that an OP isn't the owner of a thread and the rationale behind that point concern me, voiced as it is. While the OP clearly can't fend off the snark and smirks when their habits and grammar don't measure up to the more sophisticated pallets here, I certainly feel that Fodors, if it wished to further cultivate it's wealth of free content, should very well consider that thread as that of it's OP. Comments about how ill traveled a person is or how if they had any sense they'd have done this or that, blah, blah - wrapped no matter how elegantly - are far more offputting to a first time traveler than any simple minded internet flame. Some simple suggestions, maybe, offered with some grace may well be useful to OP and reader alike. But "clearly you're not capable of understanding the finer points of Paris!" isn't. And I'm surprised Fodors would phrase their rules in such a way as to make it appear as if they value these snide one liners, of which I have seen so many, as much as the OP's wish to share an experience in long form. If sincere and temperate input is of no greater value than that, then why would we bother offering it?

Or should I phrase that more positively?

Franco: <i>"Whatever I’m writing is my website, whatever you are writing is your website, whatever Aduchamp is writing is his website."</i>

You are under the illusion that you own whatever it is that you write on Fodors, that whatever photos and other materials of yours that you post on Fodors belongs to you.

No, you don't. You don't own anything. Fodors owns it all.

Please do read the Subscriber Agreement:

<i>"Subscriber Conduct
(b) The Web site {meaning this Fodors' website} contains copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information including, but not limited to, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound, and <b>the entire contents of the Web site are copyrighted</b> as a collective work under the United States copyright laws. <b>The Online Service Provider owns and/or controls copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it.</b></i> {bolding mine}

Fodors owns this website. Fodors owns whatever is posted here, not you, not me, not Aduchamp [who, since you are so unaware of his past history was one of the contributors who got some parts of AOL shut down]. That's what YOU agreed to when you started posting on this website. It's in the Subscriber's Agreement.

Because Fodors owns the contents of this website, you have put Fodors at risk if you use any language that someone could sue Fodors on.

Which is why Fodors has an additional paragraph in its subscriber's agreement:

Paragraph 8:
<i>"Subscriber agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Fodor's Travel and Random House, Inc. from and against all claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of the use of the Web site by Subscriber or Subscriber's Account."</i>

Since Fodors owns all the contents of this website regardless of who generated that content, they are liable. So if they get sued, they'll defend, BUT if you were the cause of that lawsuit, you're liable to pay back Fodors for all costs of that lawsuit.

That's why there's an indemnification clause in the Subscriber Agreement, Fodors doesn't want to be sued for some stupid thing that one of its Subscribers does, but if it does get sued, then the responsible Subscriber has to pay back Fodors for "all costs of that lawsuit".

I hope you have deep pockets.

You think I'm being rude? I'm just trying to warn you of the possible pitfalls that lie ahead. Of course, this is just my opinion, you don't have to accept any of it.

There are two things which are irrefutable:

1) This is Fodors website. It's not your website, not Aduchamp's, not mine.

2) There is a Subscriber's Agreement. When you post to this website you have agreed to the Subscriber's Agreement. It would be best to understand what you have contracted for, including the indemnification clause.

I begin to see why Fodor's adjusted their rules. The one they must have had in mind is obviously you, easytraveler. You are clearly trying to drown out the rest of us. (But I'm here to prove it's not going to work.)
What Aduchamp has been writing above about irony has gone unnoticed or misunderstood by you. Let's try once more: you are seemingly defending Fodor's new and old rules, but the only person constantly violating them on this thread is you. You are impolite, harsh, unwelcoming, demeaning other opinions (and those who voiced them), an impersonation of those "negative attitudes" that klondike was referring to earlier. Did you notice how I was trying to find those points in your statements I can agree with? Did you try anything alike? Do you understand what's the difference between a polite and positive discussion and your way of posting?
To sum it up, would Fodor's truly enforce those rules, new and old, most of what you posted on this thread would already have been pulled, no matter the position you're taking, just because of HOW you are taking it. Maybe you'll finally bother to agree with something I'm saying here: I would oppose it if they pulled your opinions, however rudely voiced, and if they eventually banned you. I'll always fight for your right to be as rude with me as you can (and that's pretty rude, proven and tested on this very thread).

Now for the rest of content. Let's first summarize: to my hotel-and-dog example, no reaction. To the restaurant example, no reaction. To the solicited-vs-unsolicited opinions example, no reaction. To the language forums example, no reaction. To the Vienna Staatsoper example, no reaction. Some readers might be tempted to think you're running out of points.
But your strong suit is the subscriber's agreement since nobody else said anything about it so far. Ok. I don't want to turn this into a juristic tutorial. But if you were experienced in consumer protection, you'd know that there is hardly any subscriber's or customer's agreement anywhere in the whole wide world (and not just on the world wide web) that's worth the paper on which it has been printed; or the html code used for the programming. You can write anything you want in a customer's agreement; if anyone files a lawsuit against it, you'll quite certainly lose, no matter what you wrote, and particularly on the www. Just clicking an "I agree" button is simply not enough; most courts on this planet will not consider that a reliable acceptance of the agreement on behalf of the user. Countless companies have lost lawsuits of this kind. Of course, no sane person will file a lawsuit over a pulled forum posting or thread; once more, I'm not specifically talking about Fodor's here - online banking is a much more important issue. E.g., many banks that wrote into their terms & conditions sentences like (quoting now from Fodor's subscriber's agreement) "The Online Service Provider shall have the right at any time to change or discontinue any aspect or feature of the Web site, including, but not limited to, content, hours of availability, and equipment needed for access or use" have lost when sued by consumer protectors, the generally accepted result now being that they are NOT free to set hours of availability and unavailability as to their whim or needs, even if and when bank customers have signed that agreement on paper (and not just online). They have to provide continuous access, and anybody suffering any loss or detriment because their bank's online service was down at the time they needed to access it has a fair chance to hold the bank liable for that loss. Of course, continuous availability is of no importance for a travel forum; it's just an example that subscriber's or customer's agreements are wishful thinking by the company that issues them, in the first place.

And coming back to our forum here, probably nobody will ever bring that to court, but I wouldn't bet that they really own what people are writing here. They claim to own it, nothing more than that as long as no supreme court has judged the matter. Since Fodor's, as I have stressed often on this thread, has always observed an exemplary business conduct so far on these forums, I'm sure they never would act like you obviously would, and so no user will ever need to sue them, hopefully, but let's construct a case. Let's say it happened one day on Joe Shmoe's travel website (I really don't want to give the impression that I might hold Fodor's capable of such a thing!), with a similar subscriber's agreement. Let's say Peter posted his Venice trip report there; and he posts another one (35000 words, this time) after his upcoming trip to Venice next fall. Joe Shmoe says "fine, I'm the owner of all the content of this website, and Peter is such a fine writer, and so knowledgeable about Venice", takes everything Peter wrote, supplements it with a few hotel recommendations and nice pictures, and prints a book, calling it "A personal view on Venice". Peter, seeing his trip reports become a bestseller, wants his author's share, and files a lawsuit. Joe Shmoe says "but we have a subscriber's agreement..." Would you bet on Joe Shmoe's success in court?
But of course, this was not even what I was thinking about when explaining you that IMO, Fodor's is also your and my and Aduchamp's website. Of course (and I was really thinking nobody could possibly misunderstand that!), I was talking in a moral sense, and not in a legal sense. But as my example about Peter's trip report and Joe Shmoe shows, even from a legal point of view, your argument is pretty weak. (Of course, I don't expect you to agree. I'm sure you'd never go so low.)

Of course, less stout-hearted users might feel monopolized by your dark menace "I hope you have deep pockets". As I said above, the only one constantly violating positive forum conduct here is you. I for one whole- (and stout-) heartedly support that part of Fodor's subscriber's agreement: everybody shall be fully responsible and liable for his/her own contributions. That's perfect, and just what I crave. If you prove me where my conduct on this forum has ever entailed the faintest danger of Fodor's being sued because of what I wrote, I promise I will instantly start to shudder with fear, and to search my pockets whether they are really deep enough. As long as you can't prove that, though, forgive me that I'm convinced you should be more worried about your own pockets; if you are voicing your criticism of hotels, restaurants or other travel-related businesses in the same likeable and compromising way you have been displaying on this thread, then Fodor's will indeed be sued one day, no doubt, because of you.
What's more important, though, is the fact that if every poster is liable for their own contributions (which, I repeat, I whole-heartedly support), then whichever kind of censorship (or even the "legal" base for it) is simply unnecessary and outright superfluous.