dieseldiva's deleted post

[spudhead911]

I thought that Terry had said that he was not going to be aligned with EO as a moderator and/or administrator and that he was not going to post any more when he took the company position with FECC. Now I could be wrong, but I do believe he said being an active member of EO and working for FECC as an employee would be kind of a conflict of interest.

If that is the case then why would he delete a post by a contractor of FECC. I really think that what he did was a direct conflict of interest. How can he justify deleting a post as an administrator/moderator while also being an employee of FECC?

At the very least he showed very bad taste. Could it be that it was done because dieseldiva posted information before FECC had a chance to break the news themselves? Or maybe FECC was going to have one of their special contractors post the news and dieseldiva beat them out, prompting Terry to delete the post

 

[LDB]

Rather than making accusations without having anywhere near all the facts why not just wonder why the post had to be pulled. My guess is the units are not to be discussed publicly because they are beta test units and not a done deal for either Qualcomm or FedEx. If someone had posted negative information about FedEx that was later deleted I might to along with the conflict of interest accusation depending on the circumstances. There is no conflict in removing information if it is prematurely made public.

NOTE: I am in NO WAY saying dieseldiva did anything wrong or posted erroneously because I don't have all the facts either. I am pointing out that Terry did nothing wrong that any of us know about and for that matter dieseldiva did nothing wrong either that any of us know about. Just pointing out the other side of the coin.

 

[spudhead911]

Rather than making accusations without having anywhere near all the facts why not just wonder why the post had to be pulled. My guess is the units are not to be discussed publicly because they are beta test units and not a done deal for either Qualcomm or FedEx. If someone had posted negative information about FedEx that was later deleted I might to along with the conflict of interest accusation depending on the circumstances. There is no conflict in removing information if it is prematurely made public.

NOTE: I am in NO WAY saying dieseldiva did anything wrong or posted erroneously because I don't have all the facts either. I am pointing out that Terry did nothing wrong that any of us know about and for that matter dieseldiva did nothing wrong either that any of us know about. Just pointing out the other side of the coin.

I do have most if not all of the facts involved in the post and it being deleted. Knowing these facts I believe that Terry should not have personally deleted the post due to his being an employee of FECC. If it needed to be deleted it should have been done by a moderator or administrator that was not an employee of the carrier. Better yet, why didn't EO or FECC just ask Dieseldiva to remove the post?

And after the post was deleted why was the title left displayed for a period of time? Could it have been a spanking giving to her for posting the thread? There is more here than meets the eye.

Why would Terry after his long absence from EO suddenly appear out of nowhere to delete this post? I am not buying the no conflict of interest therory you are giviing.

 

[LDB]

So since you have all those facts you have the fact there is a absolute non-disclosure agreement in place that prohibits a post such as that? And since you have all the facts you know that Terry went on hiatus as a moderator meaning he is not active on a daily basis as before but still is a moderator? There is no conspiracy theory. There is no reason to make a mountain out of less than a molehill and that is what this is, less than a molehill.

 

[spudhead911]

So since you have all those facts you have the fact there is a absolute non-disclosure agreement in place that prohibits a post such as that? And since you have all the facts you know that Terry went on hiatus as a moderator meaning he is not active on a daily basis as before but still is a moderator? There is no conspiracy theory. There is no reason to make a mountain out of less than a molehill and that is what this is, less than a molehill.

So if a FECC contractor/driver does a post and FECC doesn't like it then all they need to do is say hey Terry delete this for us, and just like majic it is done.

After being away so long from EO it seems strange that Terry would make a special appearance to delete this post.

Because I can't comment on why the post was done (Which I would just love to) I can't fefute your reply about the facts and the non-disclosure aggreement.

I have no peoblem about the deletion of the post, I do have a problem with the way it was done.

 

[ATeam]

My general views on the larger issues are expressed not in this thread, but here instead, for reasons there explained.

Speaking specifically to a point raised in this thread, and speaking not about the incident discussed above, but speaking instead hypothetically about any case where a carrier may post proprietary information about a contractor, or where a contractor may post proprietary information about a carrier, I see nothing in the Open Forum Code of Conduct that prohibits that. And I think that is just fine.

All Open Forum members are responsible for their posts. All operate under the Code of Conduct, the laws of the land that protect people from defamation and the revealing personal information to the public, and any contractual restrictions or obligations that members have entered into. Moderators should not get involved in interpreting and enforcing contracts that are entered into by others. Doing so opens a can of worms and potentially increases their liability risks.

Moderators need not feel obligated to enforce other people's contractal rights and obligations. Numerous enforcement mechanisms already exist outside of the Open Forum to deal with those.

If a contract dispute comes to exist between the two parties to the contract about revealing proprietary information in the Open Forum, that is a dispute to be resolved by the two parties between themselves and in court if it comes to that. Unless Open Forum moderators become qualified to interpret contracts, it is not their place to step into the fray.

A moderator who is also a carrier employee and acts to protect his or her employer's best interests would, in that case, be acting as an agent of one of the two parties that entered into the contract. While that may serve the moderator and his or her employer just fine, it raises serious conflict of interest issues for Open Forum members which I discuss in this thread.

 

[LDB]

Some of you folks need to get more jobs so you don't have to worry about little things like this. This uproar is over a situation that was handled in the most expeditious manner to do what needed to be done as quickly as possible. The bigger picture is an entirely different situation.

 

[ATeam]

The bigger picture is an entirely different situation.

Thank you for sharing that. That is my point exactly. The specific events mentioned above have nothing to do with the bigger picture. With the bigger picture in mind, the question remains:

Will the Open Forum experience for all members be improved if carrier employees are ineligible to serve as moderators?

That is the big-picture question. It is a question of principle, not personalities.

 

[spudhead911]

So since you have all those facts you have the fact there is a absolute non-disclosure agreement in place that prohibits a post such as that? And since you have all the facts you know that Terry went on hiatus as a moderator meaning he is not active on a daily basis as before but still is a moderator? There is no conspiracy theory. There is no reason to make a mountain out of less than a molehill and that is what this is, less than a molehill.

Here is a portion of Terry's goodbye post, in it he tenders his resignation as a moderator.

Unfortunately, I have decided that my continued participation in the forum would not be appropriate. As a rookie employee, I can’t imagine that my company would be pleased with me speaking on their behalf; therefore, I have offered my resignation as a forum moderator to Lawrence and Dreamer. I will continue reading and learning all that EO and its forum members have to offer, but I will not be posting.

So if he tendered his resignation as a moderator then why did he even have the power to delete the post?

Also as I understand it, that the units with the new qualcom were encouraged to show and demonstrate how they worked to contractors/drivers they met up with on the road.

There was also a link on the qualcalm web site about the new units, so what's the big secret? FECC encouraged showing how the new units worked and qualcalm had a link about the units, I don't see what the problem with the post was.

Maybe someone had their thunder upstaged by not being first to post about the new units and word trickled to FECC and they arrranged for Terry to delete the post.

I do see a conflict of interest by Terry deleting the post after he tendered his resignation as a moderator. And it is a big thing when a moderator who resigned deletes a post about a carrier he is an employee of.

Are you trying to protect someone Leo, who resigned as a moderator and still gets to delete posts? Shame on you and the other administrators and moderators who let Terry get away whith deleting the post.

 

[LDB]

Just because someone attempts to resign doesn't mean it's accepted. Terry nor any of the other moderators can force EO to accept their resignation. Believe me I know this for a fact and this current foolishness is a good reminder. I am not protecting anyone. I'm presenting the facts of the situation as they are known to me.

Qualcomm can show what they want on their website. That's their choice. The units with them installed are to show them to other operators. That is not at all the same as posting photos online. Hopefully you can see and comprehend that major difference. Testers can show it and talk about it in person face to face. That's it. No forum posting. No blogging. No letter to the editor.

If a moderator removed a post just because it was unflattering to the company that would be a conflict of interest. This isn't. Apples and orangutans. Get over it. Get a life. Get a job to run. Get busy. Get real. Get with it. Get anything but more into this vast conspiracy theory that's non-existant.

 

[spudhead911]

Just because someone attempts to resign doesn't mean it's accepted. Terry nor any of the other moderators can force EO to accept their resignation. Believe me I know this for a fact and this current foolishness is a good reminder. I am not protecting anyone. I'm presenting the facts of the situation as they are known to me.

Qualcomm can show what they want on their website. That's their choice. The units with them installed are to show them to other operators. That is not at all the same as posting photos online. Hopefully you can see and comprehend that major difference. Testers can show it and talk about it in person face to face. That's it. No forum posting. No blogging. No letter to the editor.

If a moderator removed a post just because it was unflattering to the company that would be a conflict of interest. This isn't. Apples and orangutans. Get over it. Get a life. Get a job to run. Get busy. Get real. Get with it. Get anything but more into this vast conspiracy theory that's non-existant.

It might be foolishness to you, but not to others. I will not move on. To me this is important. dieseldiva's post aside, I don't see how Terry can be unbiased as an employee of a carrier and a moderator. He acknowledged as much when he wrote his goodbye post and tendered his resignation just for that reason.

I have a job, I am real, I am busy, I am with it. It is you who refuses to see what has happened. And it is a conflict of interest to be a moderator and delete a post posted on the forum and about the carrier you are an employee of.

Neither one of us can read Terry's mind, but at the very least he should have contacted another moderator and explained the circumstances and asked them to delete the post if they thought it necessary to do so.

Dieseldiva was asked by FECC to delete the post, before she could Terry deleted it. Why didn't Terry wait for dieseldiva to delete her post? Again neither one of us can read Terry's mind, but we are entitled to voice our opinions

 

[LDB]

therefore, I have offered my resignation as a forum moderator to Lawrence and Dreamer. I will continue reading and learning all that EO and its forum members have to offer, but I will not be posting.

He offered it. That is not the same as it being accepted. He said he wouldn't be posting and hasn't been. Terry is as stand up as anyone can be. If you want to question motives, ethics and actions forget looking at Terry and start looking at Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

 

[spudhead911]

He offered it. That is not the same as it being accepted. He said he wouldn't be posting and hasn't been. Terry is as stand up as anyone can be. If you want to question motives, ethics and actions forget looking at Terry and start looking at Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

Go to the soap box to spawn your political views. No Terry hasn't posted, he just showed up long enough to delete a post. When what he did was questioned in this forum and in the general forum, Terry saw fit to slink away instead of offering any explaination as to why he did what he did. A true sign of an upstanding person.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

Some of you folks need to get more jobs so you don't have to worry about little things like this. This uproar is over a situation that was handled in the most expeditious manner to do what needed to be done as quickly as possible. The bigger picture is an entirely different situation.

Sounds much like the rhetoric that Obama is using to ram through unpopular and ill conceived policies and programs.And from your many posts in the soapbox Leo I think it's safe to say that you don't like his words or actions.It's the same here on EO,just being expedious doesn't make it right.

JMHO,but with just one call to Lawrence,Terry could have avoided much of the hoopla that has arisen from his actions.

 

[dabluzman1]

We do not have moderators.
We have censors.
EO has just mis-named them.

 

[ATeam]

Regarding Terry's resignation, that was freely offered by the man himself, long before the current controversy rose, I believe it is best for the health and vitality of the Open Forum for the powers that be to accept it.

In his post on July 27, 2007, Terry said, "Unfortunately, I have decided that my continued participation in the forum would not be appropriate. As a rookie employee, I can’t imagine that my company would be pleased with me speaking on their behalf; therefore, I have offered my resignation as a forum moderator to Lawrence and Dreamer. I will continue reading and learning all that EO and its forum members have to offer, but I will not be posting."

I do not agree that Terry's continued participation in the forum would not be appropriate, and I see no reason why Terry -- no longer a rookie employee -- should not freely participate in the open forum, as an employee and official representative of FedEx Custom Critical. Indeed, forum members have always appreciated it when carrier employees weigh in or share their views or information in a thread. However, Terry's continued participation in the Open Forum as a moderator would be inappropriate.

Regardless of what happened with the recent post in question, it is now clear that a number of leading participants in the Open Forum have come to believe, or have long believed, that no carrier employee should be a moderator.

Terry acted with honor and dignity when he offered his resignation in July, 2007. I urge the powers that be to do the honorable thing and accept it. Since the resignation was freely offered then, I do not think his feelings would be hurt if his resignation was accepted now.

Putting feelings aside, accepting the resignation is the right thing to do. I urge the powers that be to put principles above personalities, do the right thing because it is right, and act as honorably today as Terry did when he offered his resignation and moved on to his present position. Accept his resignation as moderator and encourage his active participation in the Open Forum as an employee and official representative of FedEx Custom Critical.

 

[Dreamer]

Sorry I'm late to the party, had other family issues that demanded my attention for a couple days.

Sorry folks, Lawrence locked the thread in the General Forum, and this one is being locked too. There's nothing to be gained by further debate here.


There are 2 separate issues here.

1. The deletion of the post.

It was appropriate for a Moderator to delete the post upon notification by FedEX corporate that it was a breach of their confidentiality clause.

Whether Diesel Diva knew that (and I believe she did not) is not the question. If we are notified that a someone has posted confidential information, as a matter of legality, we MUST remove it, or risk legal ramifications.

Any moderator contacted would be correct in removing such a thread.

Terry was right to remove it.


2nd part. Should Terry have still had this power to do so.

As Phil said, this is the bigger question, that I take responsibility for... Terry DID give me his resignation, and I did not fully remove his powers, because of his long history here, and my knowledge, that knowing Terry as a person, he would NOT do anything inappropriate.

However, I am aware now, as has been pointed out, how it MIGHT appear to others who do not know his integrity.


We will discuss this IN PRIVATE, and make a decision.

Thank you.


Dale